Movie testing for HUGE budget movies

G

Gillvane

Veteran
Just an off the cuff thought, and maybe Hollywood does do this IDK, but maybe they should shoot a scratch version of HUGE budget movies and audience test it first?

I"ve seen kids on youtube doing decent FX with after effects. I'm sure they wouldn't cost that much to hire if the film is FX heavy. And the FX won't tell you whether or not people will like the movie, IMO.

LIke for Pacific Rim you could do the story, and the Monster fights could just be people in Ultra Man and Godzilla costumes or something to get the idea of the film. I think you could tell if the super cool cgi was added it was going to be a good movie, or it would still suck because the story is weak.

Seems like money well spent for films like John Carter and Lone Ranger, to do a scratch version and some audience testing before spending 200 million bucks.
 
Wouldn't work, ever.
You can't even show an ungraded rough cut without sound design of a real film and expect a proper response.
Filmmaking is about more than just portraying the events in the story. Acting matters. Editing matters. Sound design, cinematography, score, production design, costume design and direction matters.
Otherwise you're basically showing a Sweded version of a blockbuster expecting the same emotional response out of people without the things that would create that response.
People don't work that way.
 
What Jawa Ex Mahcina said.

I was at Edit Fest LA last year and one of the presentations was by the editor of Pixar's Brave (which was pretty cool as I knew basically nothing about animation production) and he talked about how painful it was to audience test unfinished versions of animated films. They literally go though a checklist w/the test audience of what to expect prior to the screening (characters might float instead of walk because the animation is not complete, character hair might not move because the animation is not complete, backgrounds might be empty because animation is not complete, etc.,) and they would still get a lot of responses from people about how it didn't look real when the character with fake looking hair floated in front of the brown thing that barely looked like a mountain.

Movies are about suspending disbelief and t's very, very difficult to suspend disbelief when the ugly reality of how movies are made is smacking you in the face 24 times a second for 90 minutes. It's like having someone off the street eat raw cheese and asking, "So how do you think this cheese will taste on a pizza?"


-Andrew
 
Jawa Ex Machina said:
Wouldn't work, ever.
You can't even show an ungraded rough cut without sound design of a real film and expect a proper response.
Filmmaking is about more than just portraying the events in the story. Acting matters. Editing matters. Sound design, cinematography, score, production design, costume design and direction matters.
Otherwise you're basically showing a Sweded version of a blockbuster expecting the same emotional response out of people without the things that would create that response.
People don't work that way.
Click to expand...



Another way to look at it is, what if the Acting, Editing, Sound design, cinematography, score, production design, costume design and direction were different but the script was exactly the same?

Would any of that make GI Joe, or Sucker Punch, the Godzilla remake, or Lone Ranger, Pacific Rim, or John Carter a better movie? I don't think so.

On the other hand, take a strong script and add all that stuff if it was missing, and you'll definitely have a better movie.

If you can make a good movie with crappy sets, mediocre acting, and no sound design, and shoe string budget FX, and it's a good movie or at least engaging because the story is good, THEN you really have something worth putting 200 million into.

Like, here's 200 grand and two weeks. Make a movie with those limits and show me the script is worth dumping 200 million dollars on the full production. I'd rather lose the 200 grand and see it's a POS than just roll the dice on 200 mil.

I'm not saying your list doesn't matter. I'm saying without that stuff you can't tell if it's a crappy story or really good?
 
Gillvane said:
I'm not saying your list doesn't matter. I'm saying without that stuff you can't tell if it's a crappy story or really good?
Click to expand...
People who work in the industry might be able to tell, but those are not the people whose advice they are looking for with test audiences.
 
Some films do test footage runs to see how it plays.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZQkwpqFN2E&feature=c4-overview&playnext=1&list=TL0KfEDhzWpkM

They shot all of the Karate Kid to see how it played and certain parts got modified. You will see some scenes that never made the final movie. It wasn't shown to audiences, but it was very useful in refining the story. One scene in particular that got cut made sense, I didn't like it when I saw it in the test movie.
 
SOO many big budget films these days already do actual moving 3d renders of every shot. It's like high tech storyboarding...
 
Gillvane said:
If you can make a good movie with crappy sets, mediocre acting, and no sound design, and shoe string budget FX, and it's a good movie or at least engaging because the story is good, THEN you really have something worth putting 200 million into.

Like, here's 200 grand and two weeks. Make a movie with those limits and show me the script is worth dumping 200 million dollars on the full production. I'd rather lose the 200 grand and see it's a POS than just roll the dice on 200 mil.

I'm not saying your list doesn't matter. I'm saying without that stuff you can't tell if it's a crappy story or really good?
Click to expand...

I'm trying to imagine a movie like Fellowship of the Ring being made under these conditions (2wks to complete it, off the street actors, clip-art level VFX, no sound design, etc.,) and ending up w/anything even remotely useful for feedback purposes from a general audience. I suppose you could record footage of WarCraft as stand ins for the battle scenes... ;)
 
Gillvane said:
Another way to look at it is, what if the Acting, Editing, Sound design, cinematography, score, production design, costume design and direction were different but the script was exactly the same?

Would any of that make GI Joe, or Sucker Punch, the Godzilla remake, or Lone Ranger, Pacific Rim, or John Carter a better movie? I don't think so.

On the other hand, take a strong script and add all that stuff if it was missing, and you'll definitely have a better movie.

If you can make a good movie with crappy sets, mediocre acting, and no sound design, and shoe string budget FX, and it's a good movie or at least engaging because the story is good, THEN you really have something worth putting 200 million into.

Like, here's 200 grand and two weeks. Make a movie with those limits and show me the script is worth dumping 200 million dollars on the full production. I'd rather lose the 200 grand and see it's a POS than just roll the dice on 200 mil.

I'm not saying your list doesn't matter. I'm saying without that stuff you can't tell if it's a crappy story or really good?
Click to expand...
Gus Van Sant tried recreating PSYCHO but couldn't. The American remake of La Femme Nikita was also (I believe) a shot-by-shot remake. Didn't have the same effect.
Story is not everything to an audience. Everything else matters, Story just runs the decisions.

Besides, everyone watches movies for different reasons. I like the stories. My girlfriend likes production-, set- and costume design because she's interested in decorating and trends. To her, story isn't even half as important. A lot of people are like that. A lot of people love visuals, like cinematography and visual effects more than story. That's why a lot of blockbusters work. If you remove that from those films, they're not going to work. It would be like removing the sex from a porno or the violence from a slasher, or replacing the electric guitars and drums in heavy metal with banjos and bongos. Just because you got a great rock song, doesn't mean it'll work great in every arrangement because that's not what makes a great rock song.
 
adkimery said:
I'm trying to imagine a movie like Fellowship of the Ring being made under these conditions (2wks to complete it, off the street actors, clip-art level VFX, no sound design, etc.,) and ending up w/anything even remotely useful for feedback purposes from a general audience. I suppose you could record footage of WarCraft as stand ins for the battle scenes... ;)
Click to expand...

I don't think it would be necessary for Lord of the Rings if the script is sticking very closely to the book, which it does. I"m not talking about nit picking like a small scene is missing, etc., but the main story. Same thing goes for Harry Potter, where the script is straight from the book scene for scene. The IP is already tested, you know the audience likes the story, and the rest is all the above mentioned characteristics, lighting, acting, sound, shot list etc., basically the job of the auteur. I'm strictly talking story here. The idea is weed out bad stories before dumping huge budgets into them.

Again, I agree that your list is important and will determine if the movie is good or not if you already have a solid story like LoTR.

It would help if you're just going to completely re-write the source material which often happens, and often ends up being crap even though the source material is good.
 
Jawa Ex Machina said:
Gus Van Sant tried recreating PSYCHO but couldn't. The American remake of La Femme Nikita was also (I believe) a shot-by-shot remake. Didn't have the same effect.
Story is not everything to an audience. Everything else matters, Story just runs the decisions.

Besides, everyone watches movies for different reasons. I like the stories. My girlfriend likes production-, set- and costume design because she's interested in decorating and trends. To her, story isn't even half as important. A lot of people are like that. A lot of people love visuals, like cinematography and visual effects more than story. That's why a lot of blockbusters work. If you remove that from those films, they're not going to work. It would be like removing the sex from a porno or the violence from a slasher, or replacing the electric guitars and drums in heavy metal with banjos and bongos. Just because you got a great rock song, doesn't mean it'll work great in every arrangement because that's not what makes a great rock song.
Click to expand...

I bet that if your girlfriend tells you the list of movies she likes they have good stories, even if she says that's not her focus. I could be wrong, and maybe she loves big budget crap like Sucker Punch and GI Joe with horribly executed stories because of the sets or something. If so, she's really not our focus since she'd be in the minority. If you're spending 100 - 200 million you REALLY need to please the majority of movie goers not just a subset that has a particular preference for movies with great wardrobes or something like that.

The reason Gus Van Sant's remake of Psycho doesn't work is not IMO because the story is bad.

I'm focusing on one thing, the story. I"m not saying an auteur will make a good movie because he has a good story. You can still fail artistically. I"m saying an auteur probably will not make a good movie with a bad story.

It's like saying a race car driver needs good tires on her car. And you say, well it's not just the tires, you need reflexes and experience and lots of other skills to be a good race car drive. I'm saying yes, you're right. But with a blown tire all those other things probably aren't going to win the race.
 
Last edited:
prexdealer said:
Some films do test footage runs to see how it plays.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZQkwpqFN2E&feature=c4-overview&playnext=1&list=TL0KfEDhzWpkM

They shot all of the Karate Kid to see how it played and certain parts got modified. You will see some scenes that never made the final movie. It wasn't shown to audiences, but it was very useful in refining the story. One scene in particular that got cut made sense, I didn't like it when I saw it in the test movie.
Click to expand...

That's very cool. Thanks for posting. I wonder why it starts out completely green?
 
Jawa Ex Machina said:
You lost me on that one...
Click to expand...


It seems you are arguing against the idea that the only thing that matters is story, but that's not my point and I'm not making that argument.

The idea is simple. If you are spending a very large amount of money on production you should try to be as sure as possible that you are working with a sound story and a solid script before starting production. This isn't relevant in a remake because obviously you already have a solid story in place or you would not be doing a re-make. It's an already proven story, just like if you 're making a scene for scene version of the book Harry Potter or another well established IP. The story part is already taken care of. It's already vetted as being sound. If you fail to be entertaining, like the remake of Psycho, it's not because you are working with a bad story to begin with.

However, I recently read an article that made the salient point that what should really be remade are bad movies, not good movies. The source material or basic idea is often good, but the execution is horrible. There's great room for improvement in the execution so why not remake those movies? The answer is obvious of course; to much risk.
 
Gillvane said:
It seems you are arguing against the idea that the only thing that matters is story, but that's not my point and I'm not making that argument.

The idea is simple. If you are spending a very large amount of money on production you should try to be as sure as possible that you are working with a sound story and a solid script before starting production. This isn't relevant in a remake because obviously you already have a solid story in place or you would not be doing a re-make. It's an already proven story, just like if you 're making a scene for scene version of the book Harry Potter or another well established IP. The story part is already taken care of. It's already vetted as being sound. If you fail to be entertaining, like the remake of Psycho, it's not because you are working with a bad story to begin with.

However, I recently read an article that made the salient point that what should really be remade are bad movies, not good movies. The source material or basic idea is often good, but the execution is horrible. There's great room for improvement in the execution so why not remake those movies? The answer is obvious of course; to much risk.
Click to expand...

Where is this presumption that original Psycho was a good story coming from? What if the story was actually pretty bad but because it had Anthony Perkins in it - his creepy portrayal made the story good; or what if it was the B&W cinematography that skews reality just enough to give the sense of spookiness; or what if the remake didn't work ONLY became people knew it's a remake...? In other words the question of story is one of many, many, many questions filmmaker faces. So your solution to test the story ONLY wouldn't really work became story is just one of many aspect of why people watch films in the first place.
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
Where is this presumption that original Psycho was a good story coming from? What if the story was actually pretty bad but because it had Anthony Perkins in it - his creepy portrayal made the story good; or what if it was the B&W cinematography that skews reality just enough to give the sense of spookiness; or what if the remake didn't work ONLY became people knew it's a remake...? In other words the question of story is one of many, many, many questions filmmaker faces. So your solution to test the story ONLY wouldn't really work became story is just one of many aspect of why people watch films in the first place.
Click to expand...

Again, I am not arguing that nothing matters besides the story.

You're saying just because you have a good foundation doesn't mean you'll build a great building. I agree. But if you have a bad foundation the building is going to fall no matter how well you do the rest of it.

Personally I think Psycho is a great story when you look at pacing, themes, dialog, plot, etc., all put together. If you want to argue it's a bad story go for it.

if all you needed was black and white and a creepy Anthony Perkins to make a good movie and the story was irrelevant that would make movie making pretty easy, but I don't think that's the case.

I could be wrong but I don't think anyone has criticized the remake saying the story sucked.

Tell me the films you like and I bet they have good stories. I could be wrong, maybe you only like movies with poorly constructed crappy stories, but I doubt it.

[video]http://www.collativelearning.com/Subliminal themes of Hitchcock's PSYCHO.html[/video]

I"m not saying everything in this video break down of Psycho is correct, but I'm gonna say that this would be kinda hard to do with Pacific Rim.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top