Do You Use Test Audiences for your Films?

[capitalP]

This is typically done by major studios, I was just curious how many of you "indie" filmmakers have done something like this and would you ever?

I'm thinking of setting one up for my feature film. Depending on the response from the audience, I will go back to re-shoot stuff, take stuff out, add things, or not.

Some movies have actually benefited from this, one example I could think of is "Fatal Attraction" the original ending was much more different from the one we all know, the ending was changed due to audiences hating the original ending, the producers of the film has said, they believe going back and re-shooting the alternate ending was the best thing they could of done.

Back to my topic, I think by having some strangers in the audience watching your film, than commenting on it once it's over may let you realize things you may not have notice or friends may have held from you.

Yeah it might be a pain, to go back and reshoot things, and spend more money, time you don't have, but it may help your film in the long run, because once it's release, there's no going back.

Some may argue the fact that, “my film is perfect and I shouldn't change anything base on what some strangers say who know nothing about filmmaking…” well, we do make films for other people to enjoy and not just ourselves don't we?

And I know ultimately the film will never be perfect, there’s always gonna be something you wish you can go back and change, but atleast with a Majority of the same opinions, you’ll know what exactly needs to be change. If 50 out of 60 people say the scene with Harry and Joe sucked! well u may want to go back and re-do that scene, just an example.

Just curious on some thoughts about setting up Test Audience for indie projects. Have any of you done so, and if so did you benefit from it.

And I would assume it's critical to keep friends, family or anyone associated with the film away from the Test audience.

What are some of the recipes to set a great Test Audience screening? Have comment cards, etc... thoughts?

And this should only qualify for Feature Films(I presume), but if you've done it for a short, why not share the experience.

 

[bosindy]

This is no offense towards you because it is a valid question to consider in a commercial enterprise BUT using test audiences IMO epitomizes everything that is wrong with modern day film making. It is the reason the same films with the same endings keep getting made. Many of the films of the 1970's would not have been made or would have had different endings if they were made in the test audience era.

 

[Nic Aragon]

"IMO, is no way to make a film."

while very very true and agreed with, its sadly usually not a way to make money

 

[Jon Starr]

The movie business is... a business. They make products that people want, thus test audiences. It's the only reason they exist. It doesn't make a movie better. If anything, it makes it worse.

I agree with Bosindy. Make films for yourself.

Some people will like it, some won't.

 

[jpbankesmercer]

My test audience is my wife, its doesnt get harsher than that, honest.

 

[Huy Vu]

I have to disagree to an extent here. Maybe going back and changing your original vision isn't the way to go, but having a test audience can certainly give you good feedback about things that you may not have noticed the first time around.

One indie film group I knew screened their first feature to a test audience before submitting it to film festivals and they got quite a bit of valuable feedback. Certain segments were dragging too much so they cut it and reedit other parts. I saw both the original cut and the final cut and I have to say that it's a much better film.

It's not really about appealing to the masses, it's more like handing your film over to critics who don't know you and finding out what the response is.

 

[ugafan]

My test audience is my wife, its doesnt get harsher than that, honest.

for me it's my youngest sister.

 

[capitalP]

Some good points, my only reason for wanting to do it is to make a better film, I don't think having a bunch of strangers critic my film will hurt it, if anything it will make it better.

 

[bosindy]

Some good points, my only reason for wanting to do it is to make a better film, I don't think having a bunch of strangers critic my film will hurt it, if anything it will make it better.

Maybe, and it also can make you doubt yourself. Show a film to 100 strangers and you will get 100 different opinions. They screened a rough cut of Capote in Cambridge that I went to before its release and the director did a whole "raise your hands if you like this" exercise. Some of the wild suggestions coming out of the crowd made me and my buddy just laugh. The film was released pretty much as we saw and obviously it was a success.

When you mentioned testing, what came to mind are some of the films that shoot three endings, test them and then choose. I can't think of a more cynical process. Feedback is not a bad thing, but I would choose a few people you trust and have them watch your film. I would even screen it here, where other filmmakers can give there perspective. In the end, you know your vision better than anyone and you should trust it.

 

[SPZ]

This can be constructive. But you have to be sure who your test audience is.

I'm test screening my short soon. I'm inviting some close friends- luckily, I know people that are very different from each other, from art majors to football players. So I'll get different perspectives and takes on what they get from the movie, and what they felt worked and didn't.

I know them well enough to know what type of film they like, and what they are looking for. I know these people are going to give non-destructive feedback also. Always make sure you are inviting people that want you well. There can be smart@sses and negative people that are going to see it only to bash. So, if it is a test, test it with people YOU KNOW are going to give you feedback that is reasoned in their own perspectives.

I want to communicate to the biggest number of people possible. Its harder to make a movie that has a message to a group of people than to someone that thinks similarly to you.

 

[Zak Forsman]

i get feedback from a few intelligent people that i trust and who know my audience. and that's it. i can think of few things less appealing in filmmaking today than 'broad appeal'. when you make a film for everyone, you are essentially making it for no one. no one in particular, that is. my 2¢.

 

[SPZ]

i get feedback from a few intelligent people that i trust and who know my audience. and that's it. i can think of few things less appealing in filmmaking today than 'broad appeal'. when you make a film for everyone, you are essentially making it for no one. no one in particular, that is. my 2¢.

Life is Beautiful is a broad appealing film. Easy to understand, with a strong message. Linear, direct and Personal, yet very accessible.

The Village, or The Sixth Sense, for example- very broad appealing films with complex messages on them...


You as the director have the final say on everything. But its good for you to test with trustworthy people if something worked or didn't.

Of course, a director must have a strong vision of his work. But sometimes, gattering trustfull friends that have a different perspective in things (and in life) can trully help you to notice something you might have neglected. A director has to believe in his work, but in order to evolve, is good to listen to criticism and different opinions.

But the Director must always know what he's trying to achieve, and not be intimidated by criticism.

 

[capitalP]

Maybe, and it also can make you doubt yourself. Show a film to 100 strangers and you will get 100 different opinions.

I know this could be the case, but what I'm looking for are the majority of opinions, not the individual opinion.

But, it really depends on the filmmaker, some will do it some will not, but I do agree as a director one must be confident in his/her work, which I am, but confident enough to know that constructive criticism is a good thing to any filmmaker.

When you mentioned testing, what came to mind are some of the films that shoot three endings, test them and then choose. I can't think of a more cynical process.

I agree with this. This is not my intention at all.

 

[Zak Forsman]

Life is Beautiful is a broad appealing film. Easy to understand, with a strong message. Linear, direct and Personal, yet very accessible.

The Village, or The Sixth Sense, for example- very broad appealing films with complex messages on them...


You as the director have the final say on everything. But its good for you to test with trustworthy people if something worked or didn't.

Of course, a director must have a strong vision of his work. But sometimes, gattering trustfull friends that have a different perspective in things (and in life) can trully help you to notice something you might have neglected. A director has to believe in his work, but in order to evolve, is good to listen to criticism and different opinions.

But the Director must always know what he's trying to achieve, and not be intimidated by criticism.

those films are okay as entertainment and were very popular. not sure i agree m. night offers a very complex message. there are layers, yes, but i personally strive to make films that go much deeper. nothing that makes it's way through the local cinemaplex is going to have the same effect on me that a film like Lilja 4-ever did, or The Son, or Uzak, or The Werckmeister Harmonies. these films changed me. sincerely. and that's what I aspire to do in my own work. I don't want to provide escapism with a little song and dance for two hours. there is more than enough of that out there already. instead, I want to reveal things. I want to contribute something relevant to our humanity. there is not nearly the same size audience for this brand of filmmaking and that's fine. by nature of being very specific, the appeal is going to be limited but the potential for a stronger, more meaningful connection with that audience is much greater, imo. and fortunately, I have friends and collaborators and mentors who know that I'm aiming for something very specific and they offer the appropriate feedback.

 

[SPZ]

those films are okay as entertainment and were very popular. not sure i agree m. night offers a very complex message. there are layers, yes, but i personally strive to make films that go much deeper. nothing that makes it's way through the local cinemaplex is going to have the same effect on me that a film like Lilja 4-ever did, or The Son, or Uzak, or The Werckmeister Harmonies. these films changed me. sincerely. and that's what I aspire to do in my own work. I don't want to provide escapism with a little song and dance for two hours. there is more than enough of that out there already. instead, I want to reveal things. I want to contribute something relevant to our humanity. there is not nearly the same size audience for this brand of filmmaking and that's fine. by nature of being very specific, the appeal is going to be limited but the potential for a stronger, more meaningful connection with that audience is much greater, imo. and fortunately, I have friends and collaborators and mentors who know that I'm aiming for something very specific and they offer the appropriate feedback.

I respect that. However, I cannot associate "deep" with audience alienation. Von Trier's " Breaking The Waves" is a beautifull film. It talks about love and fate, and about the power of it. However, I sincerely don't find it more powerfull than Moulin Rouge. Same subject, different approach. Blasphemy to compare both movies? I'm merelly comparing similar messages delivered in different ways.

But one is not better than the other. Different languages, with different goals. You obviously have a very specific audience in mind when you do your movie (or you don't at all, which makes that audience you), and I have my own.

I certainly agree with you that we should have something relevant to say. We both will, in our own unique languages- in the end, its about fulfilment, isn't it?

 

[Zak Forsman]

I respect that. However, I cannot associate "deep" with audience alienation. Von Trier's " Breaking The Waves" is a beautifull film. It talks about love and fate, and about the power of it. However, I sincerely don't find it more powerfull than Moulin Rouge. Same subject, different approach. Blasphemy to compare both movies? I'm merelly comparing similar messages delivered in different ways.

But one is not better than the other. Different languages, with different goals. You obviously have a very specific audience in mind when you do your movie (or you don't at all, which makes that audience you), and I have my own.

I certainly agree with you that we should have something relevant to say. We both will, in our own unique languages- in the end, its about fulfilment, isn't it?

cool. i get you. personally, i'm seeking an audience that does find Breaking the Waves significantly more impactful than Moulin Rouge on most levels -- spiritually, intellectually and emotionally.