Test screenings...for or against? Test subject The Thing 2011
HEAVY SPOILERS FOR THE THING 2011
Okay I found this article from DVD active and thought I'd share it. It brings up some good points.
"I've been doing this online for weeks.
Okay.
Universal hired Matthijs van Heijningen, a first time director to exert control over him. By all accounts he did a massive job researching the project. Most of the effects were done practically with some CGI to enhance the finished product. Physical effects were done by Amalgamated Dynamics, Inc. (ADI). CGI work done by Image Engine.
The theatrical release (DVD/Blu) is the b*****d version. And may very well be the only version we ever see (since it bombed at the box office).
The film had a test screening which resulted in the butchering. The audience didn't react at all, silence. The studio thought it was the effects and had all the practical effects overlayed with CGI. Add to that, they cut out character development and pushed the creature's appearance sooner.
This is why I hate test screenings, the concept is fine. I agree with that. But the audience you get is random. You need horror fans for horror movies. RomComs for romantic comedies and so. The results you get are inaccurate.
The rec room scene where one of characters has his face melted into another was done practically. The effect took almost four months to complete. NONE of that is in the final film.
Gone is the bleak ending where Kate is dead. She survived, but will freeze to death (there is no snowcat left, the single vehicle was destroyed killing the beast). The ending now is... ambiguous.
I enjoyed the movie, but I'll be honest. It sucks that we didn't get the see the film as it was intended.
Worse yet, there are some reports that the 'director's cut' was lost. We only have the theatrical. This is 2011, how the hell can a current movie become lost? I guess that could happen it was store TOTALLY digital and that hard drive crashed. But why wouldn't there be additional copies?
I will be buying this. And continuing to point out the reasons why it failed. "
So there you go. What a shame, that's all I can say :(
I'd love to see the original version because save the bad CGI I dug the film. Sadly the CGI is that bad it ruins any potential scares or suspence.
Angry
It annoys me that based on the opinion of say 20 top 30 people who attended the screening an otherwise solid flick has been ruined. 'Cause the CGI effects totally wreck this film.
Sounds like a lot of finger pointing and blame passing to me. If the test audience was unhappy with what they saw, it makes me doubt the changes made ruined the film. Sounds like it made an already bad film worse but, I can't believe it ruined a good movie. If it was good the test audience would have reacted favorably they are no different then the people who eventually saw it in a theater and weren't happy. Personally I feel it's a weak attempt by the filmmakers to blame their failure on the audience. Admit it guys, you made a bad movie and then panicked and made it worse when it got a bad reaction.
Well yes and no. I agree with some of the points you make but at times test screenings can muck up a film. Now at the end of the day we will never know if it is a case of finger pointing or not. It may well be! But I think the article makes a good point of how it can hurt a flick. Since we'll never see the original print of the film we'll never know either way.
The whole test audience argument sounds like bitchy excuses and nothing more. I don't buy it. The movie sucks.
great blog I only wish the studio's had faith in the people they hire.