Dawn ,'Selfless'
A place to talk about movies--old and new, good and bad, high art and high cheese. It's the place to place your kittens on the award winners, gossip about upcoming fims and discuss DVD releases and extras. Spoiler policy: White font all plot-related discussion until a movie's been in wide release two weeks, and keep the major HSQ in white font until two weeks after the video/DVD release.
They filmed both endings. But I believe test audiences prefered getting the rich guy in the end.
One of the many reasons I hate test audiences. What the hell do they know? They only think they know what they want.
Plus, filmmaking is enough of a collaborative effort to begin with. It really doesn't need to be a full blown democratic process open to all.
And corn flakes and orange juice to say that I can't think of a single instance that I've heard of and know some of the details about where a test audience brought about an improved product.
I'm sure there have been instances, but since all the ones I've heard of took a bad or at least mediocre product and made it worse, I suspect they were in the tiny minority.
I can't think of a single instance that I've heard of and know some of the details about where a test audience brought about an improved product.
A friend claims that he's the reason I have Stargate: SG1. The ending he saw at the test screening left Ra alive and blew up the stargates. He and his friends suggested killing Ra and leaving the stargates so there could be more travels through it.
I'm sure he's exaggerating his role in bringing me my not-that-secret TV boyfriend, Jack O'Neill, but I don't think that ending worsened the movie at all, and probably improved it.
Oooh. Hadn't heard of that one.
Although, being only "meh" at best on the series, my own take would be that the ending change there was value neutral, especially if you're just considering the movie on its own.
my own take would be that the ending change there was value neutral, especially if you're just considering the movie on its own
Leaving my insane adoration for the series aside, the story that preceded that ending was better served by a victory with some traction, plus a bit of open-endedness, as opposed to the delay of peril feeling I get from not killing the baddie, but just making it harder to get to you--but now he knows you exist, and he's pissed.
Although, being only "meh" at best on the series, my own take would be that the ending change there was value neutral, especially if you're just considering the movie on its own.
HEY! Those are some extremely good-looking people you'd be putting out of work!
And Jessica cuts right to the heart of the issue.
I'm not saying they're not very pretty.... I can appreciate that much about the show.
And it gave RDA something to wash the MacGuyver mullett out of everybody's brains.
I can't think of a single instance that I've heard of and know some of the details about where a test audience brought about an improved product.
That's not usually the goal, though.
I will bet money that lots of bad movies would be even worse without test audiences. But nobody cares, because even improved, they're still bad movies. That kind of process is going to tend to make bad things better, and good things worse.
Do Uwe Boll movies have test audiences? Because if there are movies out there that are worse than the versions of his movies that make it to the theaters, we should all Be Very Afraid.