criterionforum.org

Pity Disney likely won't allow the original cut to be released alongside the theatrical on home video at least so people could have judged for themselves if the reshoots were a smart idea or not. I believe Tracy Letts understandably has expressed disappointment with the changes, and the trailer makes it look very dull.

Looks way too twisty and derivative to keep my attention. Seems more and more people use big-name casts to cover up any deficiencies in the story-telling. But it's always been that way too.

Julianne Moore character name is Jane Russell... which weirdly enough is also Jennifer Jason Leigh character name.

Jack Kubrick wrote:Julianne Moore character name is Jane Russell... which weirdly enough is also Jennifer Jason Leigh character name.

Not too weird considering what the trailer gives away

flyonthewall2983 wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 4:42 pm

mfunk9786 wrote: Tue Oct 30, 2018 9:00 pm To be scored by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross

Danny Elfman replaced them, presumably because Watchmen took up too much of their schedule.

Splendid! Elfman will write actual MUSIC for this.

Luke M wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:11 am

Jack Kubrick wrote:Julianne Moore character name is Jane Russell... which weirdly enough is also Jennifer Jason Leigh character name.

Not too weird considering what the trailer gives away

Never having read the novel this seems like one of the desperate attempts to change the ending after the roasted test audiences scores.

Spoiler

Didn't the ending of the novel have Amy Adams character dying while going after the son she has an affair with?

Netflix to acquire this from Disney, who among other considerations are apparently just not happy with it

In the middle of a damning Hollywood Reporter profile on Scott Rudin, there's this nugget:

On May 14, Netflix will release Rudin's latest production, The Woman in the Window. Like most of his efforts, the film features A-list talent, including star Amy Adams and director Joe Wright. As was the case with many things involving Rudin, it was fraught with drama, say sources, with the producer taking the reins from Wright after the Fox 2000 thriller tested poorly, then hiring Tony Gilroy to write for reshoots. In the end, sources say, it tested about the same.

The Narrator Returns wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 4:54 pm In the middle of a damning Hollywood Reporter profile on Scott Rudin, there's this nugget:

On May 14, Netflix will release Rudin's latest production, The Woman in the Window. Like most of his efforts, the film features A-list talent, including star Amy Adams and director Joe Wright. As was the case with many things involving Rudin, it was fraught with drama, say sources, with the producer taking the reins from Wright after the Fox 2000 thriller tested poorly, then hiring Tony Gilroy to write for reshoots. In the end, sources say, it tested about the same.

Thank you for the link to that article. I just really hope that the industry can finally purge itself of shitheels like Rudin and Joel Silver (who has basically become irrelevant due to not being able to produce a hit in years).

It's amazing how people still put so much faith in numbers from test screenings. Airplane! famously had some of the most abysmal test screening reactions ever recorded, but is now regarded as one of the premiere American comedies.

We need a master list of movies that went through extensive re-shoots and edits due to "bad test screenings" that STILL ended up sucking and tanking at the box office even after all of that extra money was flushed down the john.

beamish14 wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 5:11 pmIt's amazing how people still put so much faith in numbers from test screenings. Airplane! famously had some of the most abysmal test screening reactions ever recorded, but is now regarded as one of the premiere American comedies.

I would imagine that the sad truth, though, is that test screenings are usually pretty accurate predictors of audience reactions. Obviously nothing's perfect and you'll always have weird outcomes here and there, but most likely there's a good reason why studios go through the effort and expense to get that kind of data.

Which isn't to say that post-test-screening meddling is usually beneficial - that's a whole different issue.

I think you're right, and where I find it particularly frustrating is when context is necessary for the screenings (not that it would necessarily make a difference with most audiences). The most notable examples where I differ from test screenings are "modern" incarnations of old genres/subgenres, like classic screwball comedies, which is an aesthetic and performance contrast in familiarity that's challenging for most audiences to register (myself included often at first glance). The same can go for other genre pieces (see: Soderbergh's The Good German) and part of me wonders if Wright made this film in the tradition of classic isolated noirs, which was less accessible to tested viewers expecting a modern thriller. But that's probably just me wanting this movie to be good.

Just imagine if The Magnificent Ambersons hadn't tested in SoCal less than two months after Pearl Harbor, when audiences were not going to generally be receptive to seeing anything that wasn't light entertainment, or which questioned American values.

I used to think "those f***ers in Pomona" with regards to Ambersons...never been there, all I knew about it was the disastrous preview and that Tom Waits was born there before moving to San Diego when he was still a child. (I love Tom Waits though.)

"How could you let him sell you out? What about truth? What about reality?"

"What about the way the old ending tested in Canoga Park? We reshot it, now everybody loves it. That's reality"

-The Player


Regarding films that test audiences still disliked after extensive reshoots/fiddling, I'm unsure as to whether it tested higher, but Mike's Murder did not make an impact at the box office (although that's partially due to The Ladd Company sinking after The Right Stuff/Blade Runner/Twice Upon a Time all failed to be profitable).

Angus (1995) is another one that basically had 30% of the film completely chopped off due to a combination of test screenings and WB executives' homophobia, and it didn't find an audience until home video, although its soundtrack did extraordinarily well.

On the other hand Buster Keaton felt he owed a lot to test screenings often radically changing films, especially Sherlock Jr. and The Navigator, after test screenings.

Well they obviously have merit, but that plays into my point about the value of test audiences being sober to context- there's definitely a difference between an audience going into a test screening knowing they're seeing a Buster Keaton film and the filmmaker using their reactions to measure editing and cropping gags for comedic effect (or action, or drama, etc. depending on the auteurist awareness or transparency of material) vs. an audience going in with preconceived notions unmet. Now, that's not to say that this means the audience is dumb or not indicative of the popular perception, but it definitely doesn't assist the producers or director in altering their material if the central conceit of the film is misjudged or missed altogether.

Using my own personal experience, I was part of a test audience for Vox Lux, and when that movie ended a few of the people surrounding me exclaimed that it was the worst movie they'd ever seen. I'm pretty sure my friend and I were the only people in our area that filled out the form positively (assumed from the boisterous negative hyperbole permeating my sphere). It's certainly esoteric and of course when I saw it a second time in theatres at a popular theatre on opening night I was the only person in the screening (though Neon probably didn't help with marketing). So yeah, it's not a movie that's going to be popular, but if Corbet listened to the feedback I was hearing and attempted to transform it into A Star is Born, well, that would be ridiculous.

Test audiences aren't always the best judge of a film's merit particularly if the residents aren't exactly receptive to a films content and themes. The test reactions to Blue Velvet's initial screening were so toxic that someone straight up said that "David Lynch should be shot" on a response card. Dino de Laurentiis rightfully did nothing.

In the case of this film it sounds more like like studio heads being themselves. There's a big difference in my mind behind something that is difficult to understand and something that is just downright incomprehensible.

Test audience results can be manipulated too. I can't find the article because I don't have enough details, but there was one particular film (not one I've seen, one of the more commercial films dealt by Weinstein's companies, not an "awards season" film) where the director and Weinstein clashed over an ending or a cut, and Weinstein wanted to settle it with testing. The director apparently knew that this was a common tactic for Weinstein, who would then proceed to pack the audience with certain people or demographics that would sway the result HIS way. I forgot what the director did, but he anticipated this and knew he had the upper hand, and when Weinstein witnessed the test audience responding enthusiastically to the director's preferred choice(s), he walked out cursing knowing his tactic backfired.

Man, I've read that same story and now I'm going to be wondering what the movie is...

David Fincher relates that when it came to test screening Seven with its original ending point, he implored the studio not to just bring up the house lights when the film ended, but to leave the audience sitting for a bit with what they’d just seen. Sure enough, the studio didn’t listen, the lights came on immediately, and the resulting comments led to the studio imposed extra scene at the end.

What was the original ending point for Seven?

Wow, I had no idea. Thank you!

As expected, this is getting eviscerated by critics. The consensus seems to be that its biggest crime is being boring.