Test screening The Movie
Last Monday was the first time I put The Movie in front of an audience: thirty friends and colleagues recruited to help figure out whether the film was appropriately funny, dramatic, and comprehensible. (Answers: Yes, Yes, and Not So Much. We’re working on that last part.)
Screening a work-in-progress is just as nerve-wracking as it sounds. Going in, you know the film isn’t perfect. You’re projecting low-resolution video, with temp music, temp visual effects, and bad sound. But it’s a crucial step, because it’s impossible for filmmakers to see their movie with fresh eyes. You need an audience to laugh, gasp or murmur in confusion.
The thirty people who watched the cut were incredibly generous with their time and comments, not only staying afterwards to talk, but also filling out cards and emailing additional thoughts. They made the movie significantly better.
But as great as they were, the fact that they were friends and colleagues was a significant detriment. They had an emotional investment: they wanted to like it. They were also largely film-and-television people, hardly a representative cross-section of the movie-going public.
The obvious next step would be to put The Movie in front of a real recruited audience, i.e. strangers.
But I can’t.
The very same internet that makes this site possible makes a real test screening impossible. Or at the least, a very risky proposition.
Odds are, one or more of those recruited strangers would recognize my name, the producers, or the actors involved and decide it would be a really good idea to write in to Ain’t It Cool News or a site like it. Quite a scoop, after all, reviewing a movie where even the premise has been kept hush-hush.
Reviews of test screenings are frustrating for a big studio like Warner Bros., but they’re potentially ruinous for a little movie like ours. Keep in mind: We don’t have distribution yet. We’re hoping to sell the movie after a festival premiere. So if DrkLOrd79 trashes the movie, that sets a bad tone going in. Almost worse would be if DrkLOrd79 loved it and gushed on for pages. We’ve all experienced the disappointment that follows having our expectations set too high.
The friends and colleagues at last Monday’s screening were chosen for their insight and opinion. But more importantly, they were chosen for their discretion.
With one exception, every movie I’ve written has had a traditional recruited audience screening, with 200 or so demographically-mixed young filmgoers circling numbers with little golf pencils. After every screening, we learned important things which made the film better.
And after every screening, someone posted his thoughts on the Internet. It was annoying, but it was inevitable. For CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY, I stayed up until 2 a.m. waiting for the first test screening review to show up. Sure enough, it came.
The one film which didn’t have a traditional test screening was CHARLIE’S ANGELS: FULL THROTTLE. It was fear of internet leaks that kept the studio from bringing in a recruited audience. And let me be clear about the cause and effect: Full Throttle was not untested because it was a bad movie.
Full Throttle was a bad movie because it was not tested.
The premiere at Grauman’s Chinese Theatre was the first time I saw Full Throttle with a full audience. As the lights went down, there was palpable enthusiasm, and some real residual love for the first movie. By the time the lights came back up, it was pretty clear we really should have done a test screening.
Part of me fears the same could happen with The Movie. Our fear of internet leaks may keep us from giving it the test it deserves. Lord knows, I don’t want the first time I see it with a real audience to be at Sundance or some other festival. So I’m trying to figure out some middle ground, an audience of trustworthy strangers.
As always, suggestions are welcome.
Articles
August 6th, 2006 at 3:27 pm
That is definately a tough position. Unfortunately I have never been in that situation. The best audience is one that knows absolutely nothing about the film and its makers. You definately need to screen the film to other people. Like you said you need to see where the people react or don’t react. I’d be happy to watch a screening of your film and give you my honest opinion. =) I would so fly out to LA just to see your film. Anyway, good luck and I hope that everything goes well. Remember “It doesn’t matter if it is good, It only matters if it rocks!” - Tenacious D
August 6th, 2006 at 3:30 pm
Well short of you flying me out to America, it’s a really tough one. Trusting a friend or two is hard enough, let alone a bunch of strangers coming in to view your film.
Perhaps it’s better this way. It’s a personal film from a writer/director made on a low-budget; something that hasn’t been tested to hell and seen as ’safe’ for audiences. I mean, who wants safe?. The film should say exactly what you want it to say. You, and the talented people on board the project with you. And despite the obvious bias of your friends and family, I’m sure there’s some honest people in there who, in wanting the best for you, wouldn’t let you put a stinker out there without telling you.
Trust in your ability- your instincts as one of the best modern writers out there. The real test should come when getting distribution - if someone thinks it’s worthwhile then the rest will follow. I’d rather see The Movie as your vision as it stands (albeit with a re-recording mix and original score!) — sure, Test-screenings are pretty essential and seen as a must part for any movie now.. especially when you have first hand experience on the failures like ‘Full Throttle’. But come on; have a little faith - get in some small audiences you trust, drill them and get their true opinions. Trust them, trust yourself, trust the material - hunt distribution and let the audience decide!. That’s how cinema should be!.
August 6th, 2006 at 4:06 pm
I’d love to say let us watch your film, but I think we’d watch it as though it was a film by one of our friends: we’d go into it wanting to like it and wanting it to succeed. Would our opinions be helpful? Sure they would, every opinion matters, but would they be the same if the opinion came from someone who didn’t know exactly who John August was? Probably not. I think you have to try your best to find people unlike me who’d go, see your name, and say to themselves “oh, cool, a film by the guy who wrote Big Fish, Charlie and the…, and Go” but to find people who when they see your name go: “that’s funny his last name is a month.” My only suggestion would be to show it to an old age home. I’m sure hardly any of them know who you are and plus there’d be less change of internet leakage. But that’s just my opinion. Good luck, and I hope your film is good because I’d love to see it on the big screen. You rock!
August 6th, 2006 at 4:30 pm
this post raises two thoughts with me…
1) why is this: “You need an audience to laugh, gasp or murmur in confusion,,” necessary? weren’t we able to make movies in the past w/o confirming our skills with a test audience? we don’t test songs, or photographs, or sculptures.
is audience-testing the solution for the inability to make successful movies? there’s a big difference to seeing if a joke set-up is received, versus making a successful movie.
which brings me to thought #2:
do you really think ca:ft would have been fixed by a screening or two?
August 6th, 2006 at 4:36 pm
you couldn’t just pretend it’s not yours? for example say it’s some new indie film directors first outing (technically true) change everyones names on the titles and whatnot and recruit the normal way that way?
some people might recognize some of your cast, perhaps, that’s true. but would they really? would many people recognize them? i know i wouldn’t know any of them if they hit me with a sledgehammer, so even if one or two people in the audience know who they are, it’s good odds they won’t be the ones who go home and write a review on the net. besides, if all the credits said this or that person wasn’t who they thought they were, they might well think they were wrong and just let it go.
it would certainly be less of a hoohaa than having people review john august of etc etc etcs new movie.
it might feel dishonest, but it could get the job done.
August 6th, 2006 at 4:37 pm
Testscreen The Movie in China!
August 6th, 2006 at 4:45 pm
You’ll just have to screen it for the Amish using a hand-cranked projector.
August 6th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
Thanks for the candor, John, about Full Throttle - can you tell us what, in hindsight, you would do to better it? Because it was tested in front of an audience, unfortunately it was in front of a premiere audience rather than a test audience - after watching the movie with an audience, what would you do to fix it?
I ask as a fan of the first Charlies Angels, which was a whole lot of fun - I was disappointed in Full Throttle (as you also were, it seems) - but I don’t see how it could be fixed without throwing out a good half of the film. I say this with love and hope I don’t offend, it felt like someone (or group of someone’s) who wasn’t a writer was throwing you a lot of what they thought were good ideas (let’s do a CSI parody, let’s use Bernie Mac and let him improv, let’s let the girls be able to fly through the air) and expected you to make them work, regardless of whether or not they were good ideas or not, that’s what it felt like as a viewer.
It may not be cool to talk about it after the fact, but since you brought it up I thought I’d ask - I really did have a hoot with the first CA and all your other films (Big Fish is another fave, with GO) and found myself a bit shocked with FT. What are you thoughts, if you don’t mind sharing?
August 6th, 2006 at 5:19 pm
Nothing’s without risk. Have little more faith in your movie. You said your friends made the movie better. So just go for another test screening if you really want one. Sure, it’s your baby but it has to see the light of the day sooner or later…
August 6th, 2006 at 5:27 pm
You could do a scribosphere test screen here in LA, with local members of the screenwriting community. Probably not quite as emotionally invested as close friends, but still (hopefully) with a sense of story and what works and what doesn’t. Plus, with appropriate NDAs in place, a known universe of persons to whom it was screened so that if word somehow did leak out, you could at least narrow down the potential culprits for reprisals.
August 6th, 2006 at 5:39 pm
Darn, foiled again!
August 6th, 2006 at 5:53 pm
Here are my $0.02:
Test screen it if:
-You feel there’s something off but you’re not sure what that is
-You feel you have a good movie and want to generate some early buzz
-Your movie features fights with really laughable Hong Kong fight choreography and over the top wire work that sparked a really annoying trend in Hollywood films. (Oh, sorry, that was the martial artist and old-school action film fan in me speaking out.)
DON’T test screen if your movie has:
-A plot full of surprises
-A killer twist ending
-A geek boy element (comic adaptation/sci-fi fan base) that might spoil marketing if it’s revealed
Ultimately, I would test screen it if the movie doesn’t have any major set pieces or plot elements that could be revealed via the Internet and yet not spoil the fun of the movie.
I offer you this advice as a member of the studio’s ideal demographic (male, 20s), a veteran of many test screenings, screenwriter and professional film critic.
I’m also just posting to begin a string of consistent posts in hopes that my wit and writing awesomeness will result in my name being forever burned in your memory banks and in turn result in me becoming your assistant/colleague somewhere down the line. But that’s neither here nor there. (Wait, if it’s not here nor there, where is it?)
By the way, if you don’t use my $0.02, I want them back.
August 6th, 2006 at 5:57 pm
Screen it without your name or the title, so when they do blog about the film, it’s in general terms (i.e. cast, plot) that can’t be as easily referenced or identified when marketing rolls around, unless, of course you’re doing the sequel to that “film about porn with the CK underwear kid and his donkey kong phallus.” Hell, NBC and Bravo are in need of programming, maybe they’ll give you your own reality show and pay to send you cross country in search of your perfect test audience: 18-49 year olds who have chosen to remain unconnected. Millions of people still don’t have a computer or web access. Does lack of access, in general, make you more trustworthy? There has to be 30 strangers in your area that you weed out through some type of jury-selection-process-thing and find them to be literate, interesting, discreet and trustworthy. I’m that way and I have total faith that there are more of me. But is there another talent like Flavor Flav — I have to confess that the clock-wearing lothario and his VH1 bordello of crass, curb-side cupcakes, albeit in better days, maybe, has me all out of ideas. I’m racing off to watch the premiere of FLAVOR OF LOVE. It’s pathetic and yet I can’t not watch. Good luck with the film: decent and discreet doesn’t live on VH1 but it’s got to be out there somewhere.
August 6th, 2006 at 6:07 pm
John,
Go ahead and test the movie in front of a recruited audience. Multiple times if you want. Don’t worry about advance screening internet reviews. They don’t affect box office, or a distributor’s decision making in any way.
Distributors decide whether or not to pick up a movie based on the quality of the film, whether they think they can market it, and the terms of the acquisition deal. They don’t consult Aint-It-Cool-News to see what Moriarty or DrkLOrd79 thought of the movie.
Just do everything in your power to make the best movie, and the best distribution deal you can–those are the only things you can control. Negative, positive, or no buzz at all is beyond your control, so don’t let it enter into your creative decision making.
August 6th, 2006 at 6:09 pm
How viable would it be to start creating a list of strusted people to call apon to do test screenings. People happy to go through secutity checks who sign NDA’s etc. Anytime a test screening needs to be done, the studio could randomly select from this pool of people.
August 6th, 2006 at 6:15 pm
I apologise immediately for the nerdiness of this suggestion, but here goes:
Role-Playing Game-Testers.
Every roleplaying book is farmed out to these people before release. They are (somewhat) intelligent, educated people, who are experienced in providing oodles of feedback. Most of the time they expect only a little credit, and a pat on the head.
All you would need to do is float the idea with one of the game companies, and they’d be able to tell you which are the most discrete.
Just don’t blame me if they become rabid fans. I wouldn’t wish that on anyone.
Mark
August 6th, 2006 at 6:16 pm
Having shot many shorts myself I understand your problem. You are TOO CLOSE to a movie and little things you think work may not work with a general audience. If you really want to screen it make FAKE OPENING CREDITS and a FAKE TITLE. This way if someone DOES write about it they’ll be writing about a film and a director that no one will ever know about because they doesn’t exist.
August 6th, 2006 at 7:09 pm
How about taking advantage of your USC connection?
I’ve been to several events you hosted there, including the Got Career festival and last week’s WORLD TRADE CENTER screening, so it seems like you probably know the people you’d have to contact to set something up.
You’d be screening for a select group of a young demographic audience (or maybe expand it with invites to alums — me, please!), but the real advantage would be knowing exactly who you’re screening for. If everyone invited is a student or alum, you have names, contact info, etc. You could take personal recommendations from faculty on who is trustworthy. If you limit it to film school students, you may get a skewed or hypercritical audience, but you may also get some deeper feedback than you’d get from a regular audience.
Also, I think the suggestion above about screening under a false title and pseudonym is a really good idea. You might not get the benefit of good word-of-mouth, but at this point it sounds like you’re screening more for feedback on your cut than you are to generate publicity. Hide the ball now, and when the movie is really ready to be seen, you can do your word-of-mouth screenings then.
August 6th, 2006 at 7:47 pm
I’d love to test screen the movie, thanks for asking.
Just kidding. I’m sure us blog ppl. are the worst possible threats b/c we know how to post information about films (although I honestly would respect your wish, but understand the concern).
I guess your only choice is to…
(a) test it w/ people who have alzheimers
or
(b) test it w/ tribal people in Uganda
or
(c) Show the tester and then lock the audience in the theater for the next month while you change the film…call it “film jury duty.”
–RC of strangeculture.blogspot.com
August 6th, 2006 at 8:25 pm
First of all, thank you for the time, effort, and generosity of spirit that goes into your blog.
I disagree with many of your points in this last post and hope that I can offer some feedback to ease your concerns.
I suspect that if your test screening was nerve-wracking, it is because you didn’t fix something that you already knew was a problem before the test screening happened. Frankly, low-res video, temp music, and even temp visual effects won’t kill a story that works, but bad sound will. It is inexcusable, since you are just wasting everyone’s time. The fact that the film was “Not So Much” comprehensible could correlate to that. So the solution is to fix the “bad sound”–particularly the intelligibility of the dialog or jarring level changes–before you show it again.
You say “the fact that they were friends and colleagues was a significant detriment. They had an emotional investment: they wanted to like it” –I disagree. Everyone who goes to see a film WANTS to like it. And if a screened film sucks, even if they were trying to hide their reaction to it, you would know.
You say “They were also largely film-and-television people…” I say so what if they aren’t a “representative cross section of the movie-going public.” The reality is that your independent film is not going to appeal to everyone, nothing does. Except for Titanic…God, I loved that movie! I saw it twelve times in the theater and bawled my eyes out every single time. Okay, maybe that was a lie to prove my point. You have to find your audience, and my guess is that your film is based on a well-written intelligent script with a fresh story, not on cartoon CGI violence, shocking gore or Hollywood glamor fantasies. So I would speculate that the film and television people you mention are more educated, more intelligent, and somewhat more jaded by the usual fare than the average movie-goer and thus would probably be closer to your real audience than you realize.
The whole concept of not being able to test screen because someone would blog about and say something either “good” about it or say something “bad” about it is unjustified.
If that were true, then all your blog readers would gladly astroturf their own blogs and other sites to say they saw a sneak peek of your film and it was great, and presto, your marketing campaign is an unstoppable avalanche.
Or someone could kill your film tonight by post a fake review about it right now… Neither scenario is realistic.
The reality is the more that people know about your film, the more they read reviews about it, the more they see it mentioned, the more likely they are to pay to go see it. That is indisputable. And as much as we as filmmakers want people to see a film with a blank slate of expectations, the reality is that any Internet leaks or mentions of the film will help it sell more than they could hurt it. ( Of course if there is some Crying Game/Sixth Sense twist to it, you would not want that to be revealed, but the truth is that if your movie fails because people knew the twist ahead of time, then it wasn’t a good movie to try to release theatrically. I figured out the “twist” to both of those movies before they were revealed in the film and still enjoyed the films.)
So the answer is do more test screening, the final version of the film will be better. Especially since you are the writer and director. Just keep getting fresh bodies with brains attached and get their feedback. You don’t have to react to every comment, but if there are recurring issues, then address them. The risk is greater if you don’t do the test screenings than if you have an “Internet leak.” Your “tiny film” is much more likely to be saved by the Internet than destroyed by it.
I expect your film will do quite well if you have trust in your talent and taste, it has gotten you pretty far already.
Best, Michael
August 6th, 2006 at 9:30 pm
What if you had some kind of group incentive to keep things quiet? Discuss the importance of a collective hush-hush, then if nothing goes up on the Internet, everyone gets invited to the Sundance party, or free tickets to the premiere, or something mildly less extravagant (involving same room access to real life Hollywooders, of course).
August 6th, 2006 at 11:38 pm
You should work out a deal with the LA court system. Find some group of bored jurors who are being sequestered during a lengthy trail and test screen it with them. You can kill two birds with one stone this way. First, it’s a random cross section of the public and second, they are sequestered so they can’t tell anyone about it or have access to the internet.
Also, it must be pretty boring for them so they might like the diversion.
August 7th, 2006 at 12:12 am
I was wondering:
Maybe I’m a bit naive but: do serious distribution companies trust or even read every single and anonymous review?
In case it is… couldn’t you just fight back. I mean: write your own positive reviews of the movie and post them at Ain’t it cool news too?
August 7th, 2006 at 12:35 am
I agree with Daniel. Hell, you should be doing that anyway. Have some PA get on AintItCool and tell everyone, in very specific and accurate detail, what’s cool about the movie. Technically, it’s probably not even lying. (And if it is, Hell probably doesn’t exist anyway.)
August 7th, 2006 at 3:29 am
Why don’t you fly all of us who post on your site to LA and show us The Movie?
Trust me, I won’t tell a word.
August 7th, 2006 at 3:33 am
Indeed, I wish I were in L.A., as I’d love the opportunity to demonstrate how well I can keep my big mouth shut.
August 7th, 2006 at 4:04 am
Come to New Zealand and have a screening here. On the plus side, we’re cinema-literate and skew towards the smart and ironic (The Office - UK - was a huge hit here) and yet we are utterly disconnected from LA and the screenwriting scene. We’re kinda like bent Canadians. And we make a damned good pinot noir. On the minus side… nup, there’s really nothing. And your dollar is worth almost two of ours. Hell, if I didn’t want to move to LA I’d be really happy here.
August 7th, 2006 at 4:23 am
It seems to me that you are most concerned with protecting the premise/storyline of your film. I surmise there must be some kind of out of the box premise or major twists and turns you don’t want to be spoiled for the viewing audience.
My question is: what did they do with The Sixth Sense before it came out? I read/saw a ton of press for the film, but the ending was never spoiled. Not even after it came out. They must have done something right. Whatever it was, try that.
If that doesn’t work, reach out to your industry friends and have them invite their most trustworthy non-industry friends. If you really believe a test screening with a general audience will help your film, then you need to find a way to do it, no matter what the cost.
In the end, you cannot keep secrets. All will be revealed. If I were you I would simply focus on making the best film I could. We all ran to the theatres to watch Titanic, despite knowing the ending before we walked in. I wouldn’t worry about it so much.
I have worked on some films where the trailer gave absolutely everything away. As terrible as I felt this was, the audience still came in droves. Go figure.
Best of luck.
August 7th, 2006 at 4:47 am
Why don’t you have an untitled, anonymous version of your movie run in a remote town where nobody will be able to link it to anyone involved ? Let them say what they want on the Net afterwards : searching for information about your work will unlikely lead to their blogs : no keywords is the key !
August 7th, 2006 at 8:40 am
Many of these suggestions are great. Addressing some of your points, in no particular order:
1) The fake title and credits thing is sensible, but the movie has recognizable-enough stars that I don’t think it would shelter us completely.
2) The movie is not THE SIXTH SENSE in its level of spoiler-ness, but there’s definitely an aspect of what-information-you-know-when. (Thus, the “comprehensible” issue.)
3) The comment about it being unforgiveable to screen with bad sound is absurd. Just as with the low-res picture, the goal at such an early screening is to get just up to acceptable technical quality. More than that is a waste of time. It’s like painting walls in a house you might tear down.
4) An out-of-town screening probably wouldn’t be that big of a help, because that durn internet is everywhere.
5) Some sort of social contract could work. Like, everyone in the test audience gets something — but only if there are no leaks. However, wouldn’t this tend to skew comments to be too positive?
6) No, I don’t think the Weinsteins would go into a screening knowing or caring about what DrkLOrd79 specifically thought. But could the fact that there was bad (or good) internet buzz about the movie influence their decision to buy it, release it, whatever? Absolutely. The big successes out of film festivals like Sundance have been the movies where people knew absolutely nothing going in.
August 7th, 2006 at 8:53 am
In terms of FULL THROTTLE, no, I don’t think a single test screening would have brought the picture up to an ‘A.’ But I think we could have gotten to at least a ‘B.’
Here’s what I think we would have learned:
1) Demi Moore should not be able to fly.
2) We can’t understand what Bernie Mac is saying.
3) Sexy is fine. Slutty is bad.
All of these things could have been fixed with a sharp pair of scissors.
No, it still doesn’t correct more fundamental issues of too many villains and a tangled plot. But a movie, particularly a sequel, doesn’t have to be great to be successful. It just has to not suck, and I think there’s a good chance it could have.
August 7th, 2006 at 9:18 am
Thanks John - you rock!
August 7th, 2006 at 9:45 am
Walk down to the Local 600 headquarters and book 50 unemployed AC’s and DP’s. Pay them a day of P&W. Have them sign a non-disclosure. Screen.
Nobody is quicker to grasp the structural weakness of a film. or problems created translating the story to the film medium - than a good DP. Or, more discreet.
August 7th, 2006 at 9:46 am
How about addressing the problem through the sites likely to host DrkLOrd’s reviews; Ain’t it cool, DoneDeal, etc. Do you think the administrators of these sites might delete premature reviews, in exchange for interviews with you, exclusive content/previews, or some other kind of Quid Pro Quo? Maybe out of the goodness of their hearts?
Just a thought.
August 7th, 2006 at 9:48 am
John, I really think you’re facing a “win some, lose some” situation…
It’a hard decision to take. I’m sure you’ll make the right choice (probably both are)
Thanks for sharing, as always!
August 7th, 2006 at 11:05 am
Here’s the only solution that would work. Find a representative cross section of Americans. Clone them. Have them watch and make comments on your film. Destroy the clones after the screening, or keep them on ice for the next screening.
August 7th, 2006 at 11:14 am
John,
It seems to me that you’ve done the right thing already; you grabbed an audience of trusted people, many with valuable feedback to offer, and let them see your movie. Of course, there will be biases, but that’s where your experience with these people can come in handy. For instance, a family member who typically hates the genre and says “I didn’t like this scene,” may carry less weight than someone who has successfully produced a film in the same genre and learned valuable lessons as a result. Also, as I find in reading reviews of different films by the same critic, you can get a wealth from understanding that when this persons say “X”, he really means “Y”.
You said that you’ve already made the movie better as a result of the screening, so maybe digging deeper into the feedback might squeeze out a bit more. I say this because going to strangers, given your concerns, would be far riskier than it’s worth.
Good luck,
-Mitch
August 7th, 2006 at 11:23 am
Last time I’ll follow-up on my own idea, but…
Concerning the Social Contract:
However,
If not, at least you don’t pay.
August 7th, 2006 at 11:50 am
Test it in front of a non-L.A. and non-N.Y.C. audience.
August 7th, 2006 at 3:17 pm
John:
“4) An out-of-town screening probably wouldn’t be that big of a help, because that durn internet is everywhere.”
Aren’t test screenings very common in LA? I’m sure both LA and NYC have a very high concentration of bloggers / compulsive posters / celebrity watchers who’d be pretty sure to post a review right after attending a test screening. Concentration so high that any randomly selected group of 200 (mostly young) people would be sure to include several such types. I don’t think this is the case in, say, medium sized Canadian cities.
A friend of mine has edited a couple of Hollywood films (indie ones) and one of them was test screened several times during a prolonged editing process, always in the oddest places — once in a cinema perched right next to a highway somewhere in rural New Jersey. Literally in the middle of nowhere. I can only surmise that they were doing everything they could to keep the film out of the limelight (lowish budget but very big names). I think they eventually did have a test screeing in LA but that was towards the end. But this was 4 years ago and the internet has expanded a lot since then.
It seems to me that if you are absolutely determined to prevent a word getting out — and onto the internet — every member of the test screening audience needs to be handpicked and interviewed personally. And that’s a major undertaking if you want 200 people. But managable, I think, if 30 will do. But then you don’t have a randomly selected audience anymore.
I don’t have any good suggestions. The only thing that comes to mind is hiring someone in a place like Toronto (or some Canadian city that’s far away from Hollywood) to arrange a test screening for you, including the selection of an audience. You must have a lot of readers in every big to medium sized city in N-America. Perhaps your loyal readers locally can suggest candidates — friends, family, people they know are trustworthy.
August 7th, 2006 at 3:34 pm
Here my thoughts:
If you think that people going to Sundance prefer movie that they do know nothing about and the preview yoy had with yours friends was usefull, try to do another one with friends, do your homework then and consider Sundance your first previwe with “real” audience and maybe then do some changes (is it possible?)
On the other hand, I enjoy very much your blog and is very usefull for me.
Bea
PS: sorry for my bad english.
August 7th, 2006 at 4:04 pm
I’m sure your movie will have lead characters which are gay and
bald headed. Thanks for corrupting the moral fiber of America’s youth
John August. Not only gay, but bald headed too ?? Heaven help us !!
August 7th, 2006 at 4:59 pm
Dear John,
How about an out of town screening to an audience of high school students? (1) They are (demographically) one of the biggest audiences for movies(generally speaking), (2) They would be less likely to recognize some of the less known actors (unless your film stars a Britney or Hilary), (3) They would be most likely to be fooled into believing that the film is of no consequence from the low quality sound, etc. and perhaps less likely to think it is worth an internet leak.
They would also be less likely to provide excellent, cogent feedback, but they also would be less likely to also write something cogent that finds its way to the internet. And, you might be surprised at what you learn from a theater full of 200 high school students.
-Sexy it good.
-Slutty is bad.
I think high school students can grasp/communicate that.
Good luck.
August 7th, 2006 at 5:40 pm
Are sequestered juries allowed to use the internet?
August 7th, 2006 at 5:59 pm
Bite the bullet. Go on. Do it. Just screen the durn thing. The quality of the movie is what matters.
A tactic I would consider would be to -invite- some folks from Ain’t It Cool News (and its ilk), and then stuff the movie full of enough caveats (temp tracks, incomplete special effects, storyboards instead of filmed sequences) that their minimal professionalism (which the staff guys, believe it or not, have a little bit of) forces them to qualify their reviews to the point of being indecipherable if it’s bad, but positive “in spite of being imcompletel” if they like the film.
A few people have asked why anyone ever needs a test screening. To quote deepstructure: “we don’t test songs, or photographs, or sculptures.” To that I say, hell yes we do! It’s rare a musician plays a song for an album or concert without asking a buddy “Hey man, tell me what you think of this”. It’s rare a professional art photographer doesn’t take half a dozen shots of the same subject, and do half a dozen prints of those, asking their friend “is this cheesy?” Sculptors do sketches, writers get reviewers and do drafts, etc.
In fact, I think film is rare as an artform that by it’s very nature makes it difficult to do iterative feedback through the process or heavily rework completed “drafts” of the final product. And I believe so wholeheartedly in iterative feedback, I think “just doing it” is worth it.
August 7th, 2006 at 7:13 pm
what you need is a carefully selected test audience. you invited a group of film professionals to screen your movie - how about their spouses? close friends? people who post on their blogs? (sorry). there must be people close enough to trust but far enough away to be objective who aren’t moviemakers for a living. if each of those 30 people at the last screening could bring you 2 or 3 people who they absolutely trusted…
August 7th, 2006 at 7:21 pm
Hi John,
I was the one who made the “absurd” comment about not screening something with “bad sound” which I stand by.
This comment was directed at the sound mixer who would deliver you a product with “bad sound”–that is inexcusable. (I never said “unforgivable.”) But then you clarify that, in fact, you had sound of “acceptable technical quality” which is completely different from “bad sound.” So that is good news.
But since you did have good sound, the issue of comprehensibility looms larger. I think that the major benefit of test screenings is to reveal anything that confuses the audience. Or gets a reaction of a type or intensity (or lack thereof) that you weren’t intending for them to get. (Same issue, really.)
You have to deal with that first, because, for example, you might end up trying to fix an apparent issue with the payoff of a story line, when the real issue is that audience misunderstood the set up.
Of course, this is the same kind of thing you have to deal with in a script, so I know I am not telling you something you don’t already know. In fact, there probably isn’t much that you don’t already know about what you need to do.
You’re an A-list screenwriter who’s worked with the best in the biz and have a fantastic network of industry pros at your disposal for advice and insider guidance every step of the way. You have a ton of advantages over other independent filmmakers, most of them struggling to pay the electric bill, things that you probably take for granted now, including, and especially, your talent. The cream always rises to the top. Of course, your film will get into Sundance and you will sell it and it will be good and you will be proud of all the hard work. Rock on and have a fun doing it, that’s my feedback to you, Mr. August. That, and if you could insert some funny NASCAR gags somewhere in the second act, it probably wouldn’t hurt.
August 7th, 2006 at 9:34 pm
It’s so obvious: test screenings for prisoners.
If the alternative is picking up trash along the highway, attending a test screening is preferable, even if the movie is a bit on the ‘artsy’ side.
August 8th, 2006 at 2:51 am
John -
you´re a geek. So drown out the wolfes. Sell the movie via the web. Forget about DRM, forget about copy protection, forget about all that. Get all that editet stuff on your mac, convert it to a big quicktime file via iMovie and put it on this site for 9,99. Edit cool trailers. Throw ´em into Aquisition. Into iTMS. Be the first one. Be the best one. Bring the people who don´t trust an industry not trusting them anymore on your side. And on your site.
Alright, enough dreaming. I need to take my medicine. ^^
August 8th, 2006 at 4:54 am
I present the solution: Show the film to a theatre full of strangers, do the survey and then shoot them all. In the head.
August 8th, 2006 at 6:20 am
Screen it in the UK - we still haven’t quite worked out how this interweb thing works, plus are generally too preoccupied with other stuff to be bother to put something up there. But that aside perhaps choosing a high calibre audience over a random low calibre one may make a difference.
Or show each party only a section of the movie and see how they react to it - this might help to work out some minor issues and would still enable you to keep the premise under cover.
Another idea may be to have the thing encrypted and webcast it to a select audience at a specified time. Given the appropriate NDA and technology this could bring you some useful responses while still retaining control.
August 8th, 2006 at 7:40 am
Screen it at a hospital:
a) Patients need a good laugh/cry/emotional experience that doesn’t involve themselves
b) Patients understand confidenitality
c) Hospitals rarely provide internet/phone access
Good luck
August 8th, 2006 at 7:59 am
Good post John, and good luck with the testing screenings.
I simply say this: If you don’t test this movie, you’re going to live to regret it.
I don’t mean that in a completely negative way, but much like movies get better after testing, so will yours. You need to branch out and embrace people like DrkLrd69 or whomever. They will be there and they will give you your honest opinion.
Many movies have proven the first test results wrong, and yours won’t be an exception.
August 8th, 2006 at 10:35 am
Contact the guild, have them get an audience together. They probably owe you by now.
Count me in.
August 8th, 2006 at 11:37 am
I know that most high-schoolers and college students that don’t live in complete isolation will recognize at least two of your leads… That being said, I don’t have much to say that will help you out.
Unless you blur out their faces, COPS style.
Or follow the earlier piece of advice, see if you can make the drive out to Terminal Island or up to Lompoc and screen it for federal prison inmates — they tend to be white collar criminals with education, and would probably give you better feedback than your average rapist/murderer/car thief.
August 8th, 2006 at 11:46 am
“Full Throttle was not untested because it was a bad movie.
Full Throttle was a bad movie because it was not tested.”
We’ll John I am not so sure I agree with that statement, but let me say first I am a bit ambivalent about these screenings. I have done several privately recruited screenings for a director as he went through the editing process, and seen the results of the studio recruited ones as well.
We conducted our screenings far outside of Los Angeles with friends, and friends of friends, who were allowed to bring a guest, so while this was not a studio recruited audience it was close enough. We did not use cards, but spoke with our groups after the screening. We were looking for the usual stuff, especially anything that might be confusing in the narrative. If more than a few people had the same comment then we knew something was not getting through and various changes would be made and hopefully that would not come up in the next screening. This can make these screenings invaluable. However, I noticed that you really had to wade through the comments as some people would give suggestions that were ridiculous or based on a dislike of this type of film or even an actor. Even outside L.A. everyone’s a film critic. Some would even suggest new camara angles. I guess everyone is a director as well.
My ambivalence comes from the fact that I have seen an okay film with a vision turned into bad movie without one as a result of more and more changes being made. Many directors screen there films privately, but once the studio screenings are added to the mix, a whole new set of opinions come in, and this can be maddening rather then enlightening. At a certain point these screenings are not so useful and a movie can be overly tweaked.
Film is a collaborative effort, but between development hell and recruited screenings the process is no longer a collaboration but a committee. Is this how Coppola made the Godfather? Or Scorsese,Taxi Driver or Raging Bull? Perhaps they screened the film, but not in the same way it is done today. They are artists with a distinct vision and should be given the opportunity to bring that vision to the screen. Just as I think writers should be given the chance to write and not have to sit through endless meetings with insecure, and frustrated development execs. After all if they could write the movie better then they should do it. As an ex exec I always thought my job was to see which writer had the best take or vision and then when I had to give notes to try my best to stimulate or provoke a dialogue that would spark creativity not stifle it. Not that I was always successful, but I think if you choose the right person to begin and let them do there stuff then the rest will follow…hopefully.
My point is tread carefully with these screenings, not because you believe the early net reviews may kill the movie, but because you may kill it yourself by not letting your own vision guide you. I have worked with some truly great directors and they all had one thing in common, vision. Okay two things, vision and talent. Oh and let’s not forget ego. And if it does get on the net then fear not because if it is a good film you have nothing to worry about, and maybe it won’t be a blockbuster, but I remember all of Tim Burton’s films way more then I remember any of the many committee members out there today.
I also think that if we looked at it closely we would find that just as many films would be successful or not with or without these screenings. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Sorry this is slightly long and a little meandering, but clearly I am not a writer.
August 8th, 2006 at 12:20 pm
Scary as the proposition is, surely your colleagues can suggest a handful of “strangers” that have enough integrity to view a test screener and return it with comments without putting it out on the internet. Okay, so I’m a cockeyed optimist but I really do believe that most people are basically good. You can stop laughing now.
August 8th, 2006 at 1:26 pm
If you need another opinion on the film, I’d be happy to check it out. I’ve been a faithful reader of your blog for a long time. You’ve inspired me to start a blog of my own. I started it this morning. Check it out at http://hollywoodthresholdguardian.blogspot.com if you have a chance. I added your site as a link.
August 8th, 2006 at 2:26 pm
i liked full throttle
in some ways it was funnier than the first, definitely more thrilling and than the first. when is the third coming out?
August 8th, 2006 at 2:29 pm
Having been a marketer in a previous life for far too long, both in the industry and out of it, I’ll just throw this out: your most useful efforts here will be to make the very thing you fear (DrkLrd69 et al spreading the word) a feature and not a bug.
One thing I’ve done with certain product launch tests that have had similar issues is to pull a Kobayashi Maru and change the test in your favor. Not change the answers of course, but the process itself. In some ways it wasn’t considered as reliable, but close enough so that the benefits outweighed the information lost.
Here’s what we did:
1) We doubled the amount of time, say from 2 hour to 4 hours.
2) We had certain well-known people associated with the product, and asked them to committ to the testing process. They did graciously and so were on hand.
3) We spent the first half of the time with the test subjects explaining the test itself — where we were at in the process, how we were’nt quite done, and how important they were to helping us get to where we wanted to go. The goal? Make them feel part of the team.
4) Before and after examples shown from other products, so that the subjects saw what “their help” would really help us accomplish. Again, make them part of the team.
5) Q&A with the known personalities included. Lasted a long time, went off topic all the time (planned for, not avoided) sop that the subjects could connect with the known persons and vice versa.
6) An intermission — 30 minute mixer with our known personalities and product launch team. Causal. Beer and wine. Snacks. Time limit. Must have time limit.
7) Then the product test itself, with one more strong request with our new best friends that they really let us have it, because being too nice wouldn’t help us create the very best project.
Here’s what happened:
90% of the test subjects were much nicer, frankly didn’t want to make the product seem like crap. But they still pointed out the flaws. The other 10% were harder on us than they would otherwise have been, now that they knew us. But they were nicer about us once we were no longer in the same room.
It takes longer, requires more committment, costs more (beer and wine, snacks, space rental, etc.) but the information was still about 80-90% as helpful. Because we weren’t testing ignorance of product development, we were testing how they responded to the product itself. More importantly, the word that did leak out — and it did — was almost always caveated with “well, it wasn’t perfect but it’s gonna be good when they’re done” sentiments.
Good luck.
August 8th, 2006 at 3:29 pm
Michael:
RE: Bad Sound
Michael, I would say that MOST test screenings are screened with what many people would consider…bad sound. It doesn’t matter what you’re budget is but before a film is locked, there’s always bad sound.
A sound mixer hasn’t been invented yet that can drown out street noise, airplanes, and construction going on 10 blocks away. But you screen it with the bad sound because you don’t want to spend hours of mixing and ADR on a scene that you might ultimately cut.
John:
A screening outside of LA is a very good idea. Not screening it would be a mistake. I just started the festival circuit with my film, Serial, and thankfully it’s already winning some awards. But if I didn’t screen it (and yes, it does have somewhat of a shock ending), it would’ve been a disaster.
The pros really do outweigh the cons.
August 8th, 2006 at 3:41 pm
John:
Yeah. Fuckin’ hell, huh? You have to screen the film. Have to. Here’s my suggestions.
Scrutinize the audience. If anyone recognizes you, chuck ‘em. They’re already too insidery. If anyone seems particulary geeky, chuck ‘em. If anyone seems “cool” or generally aloof toward the proceedings, chuck ‘em.
Get in touch with Drew McWeeny. He’s the fairest and most talented of the AICN reviewers. Maybe see if he’ll agree to do an embargo review, i.e. he can see the movie, but he agrees to hold his review back until a couple of weeks before release. Something like that.
Forget about all of it, and let the internets do what they do. Bad net buzz won’t kill a festival screening.
C.
August 8th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
How about recruiting friends and families of your 30 trusted friends and colleagues at your first test screening who are not in the industry? Tell your 30 friends and colleagues to suggest someone that they trust not to spill the beans. Get these non-film people into your second screening and have them sign confidentiality-type agreements if you’re really that worried, I mean if you think it won’t offend anyone. I think the 30 sets of opinions you’ve already got from people (even if they’re in the film industry) is probably pretty good, even if they’re not a perfect cross-section of people who go to see movies. I was wondering: how do you use other people’s opinions? Obviously, there are going to be comments about issues you’ve already thought through that you can dismiss. But I suppose there are always things that come up that you didn’t see or never thought of and which are valid. Or is it more about a consensus of reactions and opinions that makes you wonder whether a change somewhere is appropriate or not? I would probably trust the consensus you’ve already got about the film’s dramatic elements and comic vibe. And if film-type people don’t comprehend certain things, then non-film people will probably have the same types of reactions there. It’s your call. I think leaks are gonna happen if you show it to more and more people, especially people who don’t know you or who have no connection to you whatsoever. Anyways, that’s my two cents worth. Good luck with your film.
August 8th, 2006 at 5:22 pm
Idea for a discrete audience :
Let’s say you show your movie to a class. For instance, a cinema school class, or a journalism class. The student have to write a paper, or better yet a liner not for the DVD release, regarding the movie, thus giving them a good reason to pay attention. If the info sneaks out, the school fails the whole class.
The hollywood process is working a lot with screening and public testing (so is politics in your country) but seldom other countries do so. But I don’t think that non-US movies goodness is due to luck, do they ?
August 8th, 2006 at 6:23 pm
Try film schools outside of the greater LA area (like the Bay Area community college where I teach for example). Not exactly a cross-section of America, but I don’t think that’s what you necessarily want at this point. Most of the people would respect non-disclosure requests, I think. And they’re geeky enough to think it’s cool and informed enough (hopefully) to understand the technical problems of a work-in-progress screening.
August 8th, 2006 at 11:21 pm
Would there be any way of sending pieces of the movie out to possible testers, then by seeing which pieces were written about on the internet you’d know who could be trusted with the whole thing, and who not. Of course, you’ve probably just seeded the internet with youtube quality snippets of your whole film in a rough form. That might be a Bad Idea.
Ok, getting realistic, what’s worth more to you - a film that hangs together and works the way you want it to work, or spin control? You can also counter program bad spin with honest people who promise to post their opinion if they genuinely like it and not so good stuff, or unfair stuff has been posted.
Another idea is to recruit a number of people you trust, who have not yet seen The Movie. Let each of them, or perhaps two or three of them, see successively reworkings of The Movie. Let them make their observations. Then let them read a digest of previous viewer group comments to see how well the previous comments were addressed. Maybe videotape their comments, so they will not be economical with words if they aren’t writerly types.
If any of this was mentioned before, I’m very sorry. I didn’t wade through every single comment in my haste to make my invaluable advice known.
By the way, Kiwis, while all the lovely things Sarah says about them are true, gossip like magpies and DO know how to use them internets. Also, their pinots don’t age, drink them young. They won’t accept being possibly the best place to make white wine on earth - sigh.
August 9th, 2006 at 10:04 am
Ofcourse, we all realize that you’re just venting and/or obsessing a bit. Good luck with the screening, I’m sure it will go well.
By the way, uh…did someone actually try and get a job by posting their bosses e-mail address? As if you would actually contact them and say:
“Hey, uh…John August here. You may not know me, heh heh, but someone who reads my website posted your e-mail address so I could hire you or her…uh, it’s not really clear but you know. It sounds like a credible and totally not an unrealistic way to go. Yeah, mmm-hmm. Yes, I want to pay you so I can get some unbiased feedback for my film. No, really, it’s me. Hello? Heeellooo?”
August 9th, 2006 at 11:56 am
1) If the big fear is Ain’t It Cool News and similar internet leaks - what about finding an audience not likely to post? (e.g., not high schoolers and college kids - sorry Fred)
Consider screening it on busy professionals with enough career satisfaction that they don’t need to feel important by posting their opinions on the internet. (e.g., us - oops - sorry everyone who wanted to be a test screener)
Busy L.A. professional may be unwilling to take time out of their life to help Hollywood - but if you screened elsewhere, I bet they’d be excited and flattered. (e.g., I work in a university research hospital - at a venue like that you could probably get MDs, PhDs, nurses, business types, etc. who are excited to be part of the process. Bonus - they’re already used to confidentiality w/ patient info, research subjects, preliminary research data, etc.)
2) Deception - if you start a false information campaign w/ fake leaks - nobody will believe the legitimate posts.
Also - it’s fantastic to see an established, successful pro who’s still worried about others’ opinions. (insert own list of writer/producer/directors who could have improved their product if they were willing to take feedback)
August 9th, 2006 at 12:33 pm
Oh my God. Totally embarrassed now that someone’s pointed that out. I just meant that sometimes having a contract makes people feel more secure about that.
I’m going to go hide now.
John - can you unpost my last post?
August 9th, 2006 at 1:22 pm
Kristin:
Hey, no fair being all nice and gracious! Now I feel like a total asshole. Grrrr!
Well, at least it’s obvious that your heart was in the right place.
August 9th, 2006 at 6:10 pm
Hey John,
Congrats on getting the film made, btw.
I could get a few WSF members together for a screening, if by some random chance that appealed to you. We screened “Super Sucker” for Jeff Daniels a couple years ago and just recently did “The Path to 911″ for Cyrus Nowrasteh.
I can pretty much guarantee that you’d get unbiased feedback and am confident no one would leak anything.
Here’s to getting distribution!
Jess
August 10th, 2006 at 7:44 am
Do a test screening in Saskatchewan or the like. Keep it small. 30 is just as good as 200 (for your purpose anyway). So pick randomly, have them fill out some sort of “legal” form (it scares the be-Jesus out of them). Cross check it with IDs. Then you could serve alchohol increasing the “honest” feedback by 20-30% (re: Mel Gibson).
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this post are not the authors. He has no knowledge of “screenings”, Mel Gibson, or the consumption of alchohol. Nor does the author associate himself with the opinions of Saskatewanians or Mel Gibsonians.
August 10th, 2006 at 9:56 am
John, thank you very much for sharing the tales of your adventures in the wonderful world of filmmaking.
I don’t mean to open up a can of worms but… now that you’ve moved over to the dark side and have become a double threat will you take the controversial “A film by John August” credit?
Just curious. Maybe you’ve already told us where you stand on the subject of possessory credit and I wasn’t paying attention. If that’s the case, I apologize for asking you something you have already answered elsewhere.
In the interest of full disclosure, I have no objection to the possessory credit. I object to the fact that it’s given out indiscriminately (a MC G film?!) but I am one of those reviled people who believes that there are plenty of cases where a film ends up being fully or mainly attributable to the vision of one individual. So there.
August 11th, 2006 at 9:29 pm
John,
Whatever you do - screen it.
I made a movie - just one - and screened it once - just once. In the years since the movie, I have always thought, oh, if only I had screened it one more time; the first screening did SO much, to let me know what was working, what needed to be cut, what was unsalvageable, and, most crucially, what people did not like but which I discovered I absolutely could not part with — but it was also the only big screening we did before we cut the negative and went into the world of festivals and distribution.
If what you are after is a great end product that you will be proud of for the rest of your life - then by all means give yourself the necessary information to make the most informed decisions, and screen the film as much as you can so you can shape it as best as you possibly can. If what you are after is ‘the biggest sale,’ then frankly I don’t know why you’re making this movie as opposed to some other one.
Know what I mean?
Good luck.
August 11th, 2006 at 10:46 pm
John,
This may sound completely ridiculous to you at first but please give this a bit of consideration. I know of a college that I believe would have just the demographics you’re looking for - the right age, diverse geographic origin (students enrolled from all over the country) and a high male-to-female ratio. I’m familiar with the school as I’m an alumnus.
The school also has a strict honor code that is taken very seriously. It would be a matter of school pride to maintain confidentiality - if one person leaked something inappropriately it would be taken personally by the entire student body.
The school is The Citadel, a military college in Charleston, South Carolina. It is mostly male but there are a fair number of women attending now. The school numbers around 2,000 students.
I know that the term “military college” may not jibe with your idea of an average cross-section but if you check it out you’ll be surprised. Even though it’s a military school less than %50 actually go in to the military (I didn’t). On summer breaks they’ll do the same thing I did - average one or two movies a week with their friends back home who are Gators or Seminoles, etc.
They are no different than students in any other school with the exception that I think you would be operating in a much more “secure environment” so to speak. In my opinion (and if it were my movie) I would feel completely confident using the school as a permanent test screening site with the benefit of getting the same useful feedback I’d get screening it elsewhere.
In addition it would give you an excuse to visit one of the prettiest cities in the U.S.
August 12th, 2006 at 2:33 pm
I’m a writer in Santa Monica and I understand your situation. If you are looking to build a list of folks for a screening - people who you know and trust or hope you can trust - then I will give you my word as a person (and a Jew!) that I will not spread word one about your movie and whatever I see to anyone in any way.
August 13th, 2006 at 7:06 am
On a tangent…
I’m a screenwriter. I have a friend who works in ‘the industry’. In sound. He invited me to a screening of a film-in-progress last month. The director is, from what I was told, ‘a difficult person to work with’. I was an unexpcted audience member, and as we were introduced, I sensed that she wasn’t that glad to have someone she wasn’t familiar with there to spectate.
I won’t comment on the film. (You will see it this year. And it will no doubt get some intriguing reviews.) What I will comment on is the twenty minutes or so of sycophantic feedback she got from those involved in the project after the lights came up, who numbered about six, seven of the audience. It was clear as she engaged them that she wasn’t so much looking for ‘constructive feedback’ as she was looking for the smallest affirmations that she was justified in maintaining her course. (One that was, in my opinion, needing some adjustments…but then she wasn’t really sure what genre her film fell into…and this comment alone made me shudder.) Had she asked my opinion, I would have given it to her. But I daresay the contrast between what she’d received from others and my comments would have been too stark. Making me wonder if directors really ever want the truth. Maybe they’d prefer to put out the film they’d envisioned rather than the one that has the best chance at success.
August 13th, 2006 at 7:58 am
A couple of thoughts from a so-indie-no-one-knows-I-exist filmmaker living and working far away from your universe and its realities.
Check the opinions of friends who are NOT from the industry and therefore not likely to understand, or worse, incorporate their own interpretation into the watching of your film.
Test it with people who don’t even speak the language. Do the pictures tell the story? Also, a Korean blog post may not cause as much harm to the film’s chances at acquiring distribution.
The difference between Full Throttle and The Movie should be that the latter will not have been ‘re-interpreted’ by a director who brings his own baggage to the project. Even if you took off your writer’s hat and put on a director’s hat, not having already settled into a director’s mold and ego for several years may help you see your movie more objectively than someone who believes that his ‘vision’ will conquer all.
There’s no way you can be completely sure that one of the 30 who’ve watched that first cut aren’t completely averse to sending out a missive to AICN or Latino Review about The Movie.
Good luck.
PS: What bugs me, a little, is that you seem certain that the film will actually get into Sundance.
I guess it’s true that ‘it doesn’t matter what you make… it’s who knows your work that ensures festival acceptance.’
:o)
August 14th, 2006 at 7:59 am
John,
Bring your film to my school. We’ll fill (or half fill - your choice) the theatre with students and faculty. Bring it yourself or send a DVD and some cards. We have a small student body but the kids are very diverse. They range in age from 20-40. They are all above-average smart or better. We’re not anywhere near LA, but more importantly, we do test screenings of some of our films for faculty audiences and random community members. The students understand the value and they want to help. Plus it would just be cool.
August 16th, 2006 at 9:35 am
I don’t think anyone really gives a crap about a few people’s opinions/spoilers of an unfinished film unless it holds cult status or something… like Spiderman 3 hehe.
If you’re hoping to get distribution then that will surely come from how well it’s received in it’s finished form at the festivals — and not the opinions of 100 people and their little internet buzz.
You can’t hide it forever because of a few twists and turns, eventually someone other than crew and friends/family will see The Movie and then it will be talked about before distribution comes along anyway… right?
x
August 16th, 2006 at 1:06 pm
Why dont you just test it at a college like UCLA or USC? For that matter, if you wanted to avoid LA in general, test it at somewhere like Boston College.
Just have the school set up an auditorium, for a free test screening with feedback. Don’t give any info on who wrote it, produced, stars in,..etc… just give a brief description of the movie and what its about, and let those students check it out..
you could probably do that at a few schools without it leaking.. just never give the title of the movie…granted.. it would only be targetting the college aged people.. unless faculty voiced their opinions as well.
just my 2 cents, since you’ve donated about 2 grand in your 2 cents on here weekly…
-Justin Alan Hammond
August 18th, 2006 at 8:16 am
I’ve sat in test screenings with friends’ films. And you never give a fully honest, frank comment. Nor should you. You’re friends. You’re acquaintances. You’re professional collegues. I wouldn’t be brutally frank with a stranger. But walking out of a theatre with no director within earshot, I’ll happily tear the film apart and insist the director should never work again. You just can’t rely on friends’ comments. They will definitely try hard to give you good ideas. Probably harder than a stranger, because they want you to succeed (succeed more in your case). But they won’t tell you what they REALLY thought. Ever. closest you can get to that is anonymous mail-ins. I think you’re going to have to bite the bullet and find at least 50 strangers willing to sign a one-page non-disclosure agreement (for what it’s worth) and get them to fill in their comments anonymously.
August 18th, 2006 at 5:17 pm
Is ‘The Movie’ the untitled john august project on imdb. Because if it is then the only actor I recognised was Ryan Reynolds (comedy factor? Haven’t seen him in any other role really). Oh and Dakota Fanning’s little sister probably raised on the same talent juice as her sister.
So I say go for it and let the people see Officer Cooper in action
August 18th, 2006 at 7:24 pm
Truly neutral feedback, although ideal, is very rare. So, I try to filter the feedback I get.
I have a few people that I trust to be honest with me about their opinions, as I’m sure you do.
Treasure them. It doesn’t mean that I change something based on what they’ve said. But it reinforces my resolve about the certain part he or she didn’t like or liked for whatever reason.
And that helps me. Someone who was not involved in making the movie, but whom you can discuss it with, or even argue about it with sometimes. Someone who’s not going to benefit financially or professionally by currying to your favor. In any case, trust yourself and your vision and be open to all the feedback possible. Take all the feedback you can get, even if it’s not ‘neutral’. It will strengthen your resolve about the choices you made and will make in the future about your film and your future films. Finally, try not to worry too much. Trust your instincts. Ultimately, it will all work out for the best. cheers, j
August 21st, 2006 at 5:43 am
I’m a Seattle area film student and a member of the Seattle International Film Festival. Every year we have a secret film festival where members have to sign NDAs before viewing a screening - though that pretty much requires a spring time frame.
We also regularly have Members Only screenings of upcoming films. I’ve never had to sign an NDA for those, but it’s conceivable that something could be set up. There’s a web presence at http://seattlefilm.org for contact info. (I don’t actually represent SIFF, and have no vested interest other than wanting to attend such a screening.)
Of course, that’d mean you’d have to take your screening up to Seattle. Personally, I think it’s worth the trip. Oh, but bring about $14 in cash so you can grab a cup of coffee.
August 22nd, 2006 at 4:28 pm
Would it be possible to have everyone sign a confidentiality agreement…? Has that ever been done? I know it would be difficult to enforce, but thats one of the reasons you have an attorney, right
August 23rd, 2006 at 7:00 pm
Oooh Oooh I’ll sign up to watch and critique. I am on the non-production side of the industry. I’ve watched a zillion movies and am very picky about what I see.
((((Ie - was it just me??? or did Van Helsing make you want to cringe? I loved the visuals…I just wish everyone would have kept their mouth’s shut. Every line was an over-used cliche.))))
Anyways if you don’t pick me - good luck! I will check back to see what you are up to later.
BEST!!!
Heather
August 28th, 2006 at 3:01 pm
John… you know what’s working. It’s the dialogue and scenes that may or may not work that need testing. Granted, some scenes can’t stand alone. But a lot can. Test bits and pieces with different audiences. The project is safe and you’ll have at least some answers.
September 9th, 2006 at 10:37 pm
Hire them, pay them, and make them sign non-disclosure agreements. If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.