First, don’t be surprised when the scenes that appear on the “scenes I liked most” list, also show up on the “scenes I liked least” list. It happens every time and, in a funny sort of way, means that you’re pushing some buttons. Not a bad thing.

Second, be very very careful how you ask the question about things that concern you (this is especially true in the those awful focus groups after the screenings). As soon as you ask whether the audience had a problem with something, you’ve called it out to them and they start responding to perceived problems, even if they didn’t feel them. If you have an issue with the music in your film, don’t ask about the music, ask if there were things that contributed to the audience’s enjoyment or lack of enjoyment of the film.

You get the idea. As soon as you give them a pencil, they all think they’re Roger Ebert.

And, finally, be very very careful about what changes you make as a result of the questionnaires. Too many people use it to justify something they’ve wanted to do all along, and others use it as a cudgel to beat someone over the head. Each audience is different and each person in each audience is different. Take everything as information, not as marching orders.

That, too, depends on the audience: when I first moved to Southern California to get into the film industry, I was working at the Cineplex Beverly Center as an usher. I remember when “Harry and the Hendersons” opened in the two big theatres upstairs. The same film print was literally strung from one projector to the other so the second theatre got the same scenes a few moments later. I would walk from one theatre to the next and in each one, both with fully packed audiences, the reactions were utterly different. People in Theatre One cheered and laughed and applauded, people in Theatre Two guffawed and slept and snored. Then I noticed that Theatre One had more children in it than Two, which was mostly made up of adults in their thirties or forties wondering what the hell they were doing there.

So the type of audience matters. At a preview of the Demi Moore “Scarlet Letter” in Brentwood, the film was literally laughed off the screen. It was awful, mostly because I couldn’t hear John Barry’s lush score, but because, having run previews myself as an assistant editor, I really felt for the film crew who were at the back of the theatre. The laughing began during Demi’s and Gary Oldman’s love scene in the grain and escalated to the point where it felt like the building was going to collapse. I sat there wondering why on earth they invited so many males between the ages of 20 and 35. It was just awful.

Anyway, I got in to that preview because I lied. Yes, I told them I had nothing to do with the film industry. Maybe I cursed the screening… :)

They do screenings outside of Los Angeles. The one for Charlie was in Chicago. But since executives want to come to the screenings, it’s a lot easier to do them in town (or in Orange County).

@Erik Harrison:

The test screenings for The Nines were more on the order of “friends and family” screenings, in that we only recruited people we knew, each with a guest they could vouch for. Because we were taking the movie to Sundance with the hopes of selling it, it was especially important that no pre-reviews leaked out on places like AICN.

The comment cards (and conversations in the lobby) were a big help in figuring out where people were getting confused in the wrong way, and where we could tighten pacing. We did one screening before the reshoots, and one after. The second one was much better for the progress.

After the movie sold, Newmarket did a few similar screenings, but nothing involving cards or potential changes.

@Jeff:

What you’re referring to is “Definite Recommends,” which is a key statistic on professional test audience screenings. It’s a metric that really means something — but only if you have an audience that’s not made up of friends and family.

@Jeremy:

Another way to think of it: if people have a hard time reconstructing the movie in their heads, it may not be working right. Best to focus on the things that really stick out, positively or negatively.

Went to a test screening once, filled out a card, and was asked to stay afterwards for a “focus group� session of about 24 people. The moderator asked “Who rated this movie good or better?� (Scale was: Poor, Fair, Good, Very Good, Excellent). Everyone in the focus group, except me, raised their hands. I was the only person in the focus group that rated in the movie Poor or Fair (I rated it Fair).

Throughout the session, it appeared that I was the only person who didn’t like the movie. Everyone else seemed to think it was hilarious.

Later, the moderator asked “Who would recommend this movie to others?� I did not raise my hand, but neither did half the focus group. No more than 10 of the 24 people raised their hands. This is very telling.

Everyone in the focus group (except me) indicated that they thought the movie was at least “Good.� However, less than half of the people in the group said they would recommend it to others.

My question: Who are these people that say the movie is good but wouldn’t recommend it to others? Who wouldn’t recommend a good movie? Has anyone ever uttered this phrase: “I thought it was good, but I wouldn’t recommend it?� To me, if you wouldn’t recommend a movie to others, you probably didn’t like it too much.

I think this shows that people really didn’t like the movie as much as they said. They checked the word Good because it was in the middle of the scale, but more likely thought the movie was only Fair. Otherwise, how do you explain all these people who supposedly thought it was good, but wouldn’t recommend it?