Were the test screenings real?

[robboadam 2,291]

So after all the praise that ASIB, and that quality of the finished product, I can’t help think of those ‘test screenings’ that took place about this time last year.

People were saying how bad it was and how it needed a lot of work - were people just trolling and making the screenings up, or were they real and the movie genuinely was like that?

Anyone go to one of these that can shed some light?

[berlinforme 5,317]

A recut can change a lot of things. But tbh I haven't heard negative reviews of the movie, even back then. Do you have any sources?

[FATCAT 60,155]

I remember this, the thoughts were that it had pacing issues and they fixed them for the actual release.

[robboadam 2,291]

Fair enough, ok - tbh I don’t have the sources on hand, but it could probably be digged up from Gagadaily or Google

[Miracle 14,068]

4 minutes ago, robboadam said:

Fair enough, ok - tbh I don’t have the sources on hand, but it could probably be digged up from Gagadaily or Google

Screenings were real but not all people who watched them were right / reliable. Some Madonna fans made up they went to a screening and there was a fake blind item about ASIB being a mess

[gag 22,449]

Yes they were real but no one back then said anything about how "bad" it was. The general opinion was that it's a decent movie with major editing and pacing problems. @Ziggy was at one of them.

It seems as though they've somewhat fixed the issues since then, but a few critics do point out the weaker second half and some issues in editing. So post-production definitely listened to the pre-screeners, it's just not a flawless movie.

There were also industry support (De Niro, JLaw, Spielberg, Streisand, Sean Penn all praised it before Venice) as well as 'blind gossip' items about the movie being garbage.

 

[Didymus 34,380]

35 minutes ago, gag said:

a few critics do point out the weaker second half and some issues in editing. So post-production definitely listened to the pre-screeners, it's just not a flawless movie.

Came here to post this

Even the most positive reviews point this out, indeed, so it's definitely a lasting feature of what the test screenings reviews pointed out, proving they were real indeed.

[GagaUnderYou 4,994]

You can tell the movie has been significantly changed. The trailer even includes many scenes that were removed/replaced. Ex. Gaga and the "way she looks speech", and Gaga on the zipline and Bradley catching her. With the movie being pushed to the later part of the year, they had ample time to work with it. 

[Ziggy 11,936]

49 minutes ago, gag said:

Yes they were real but no one back then said anything about how "bad" it was. The general opinion was that it's a decent movie with major editing and pacing problems. @Ziggy was at one of them.

It seems as though they've somewhat fixed the issues since then, but a few critics do point out the weaker second half and some issues in editing. So post-production definitely listened to the pre-screeners, it's just not a flawless movie.

There were also industry support (De Niro, JLaw, Spielberg, Streisand, Sean Penn all praised it before Venice) as well as 'blind gossip' items about the movie being garbage.

 

You can't fix everything with editing. Prescreenings are designed to measure how well a film will perform with audiences in its current state. If you're lucky the problems will be surmountable, like editing or maybe 1 awkward scene, but if it's something like you hate the main actor then there's no hope and you accept the impending loss.

 

The weaker second half was apparent on my viewing, but like you mention, the editing in my screening was all over in general that it wasn't such an isolated issue. That said, it doesn't render it unenjoyable or make it a slog. I still quite liked it, but the magic is in watching their fall for each other and it's hard for the rest to live up to that because it's all so sweet and seeing their chemistry blossom is great.

[RAMROD 109,873]

Tests screenings always real, and they are never publicized. It is for the film studio to see and decide if a movie need re-edit, or even reshoots, based on reception by anyone attending that screenings. What they saw were very raw cut. What they released are the final cut after all editing and more.

[Ziggy 11,936]

1 hour ago, robboadam said:

So after all the praise that ASIB, and that quality of the finished product, I can’t help think of those ‘test screenings’ that took place about this time last year.

People were saying how bad it was and how it needed a lot of work - were people just trolling and making the screenings up, or were they real and the movie genuinely was like that?

Anyone go to one of these that can shed some light?

I was the one with the big thread. I didn't say it was a super bad movie, sorry if it came off that way! I just wanted to give a real response to y'all about it and not rose-tinted. I believe I said, it had solid bones but the pacing was off which could be fixed with an edit. But I said that given the timeframe it wasn't an insurmountable issue and that this is what test screenings are designed to catch.

 

I'm sure the movie has changed quite a bit since its initial edit that I saw, but it wasn't a mess. It just needed to be assembled a little better which by and large it sounds like it has been.

[gag 22,449]

31 minutes ago, Didymus said:

Came here to post this

Even the most positive reviews point this out, indeed, so it's definitely a lasting feature of what the test screenings reviews pointed out, proving they were real indeed.

Not really.

It's definitely a prevalent opinion among critics but the most positive ones pretty much rave about how it's a masterpiece, though critical opinions on the editing constitutes the 87 metascore I guess. 

Empire even praised the editing: "While Gaga and particularly Cooper do much of the heavy-lifting, credit must be given to the editing job done by Jay Cassidy (Silver Linings Playbook, American Hustle)."

[hoeslay 4,191]

They were real and the lowkey tea is that the pacing issue wasn't fully resolved...

[Didymus 34,380]

4 hours ago, gag said:

Not really.

It's definitely a prevalent opinion among critics but the most positive ones pretty much rave about how it's a masterpiece, though critical opinions on the editing constitutes the 87 metascore I guess. 

Empire even praised the editing: "While Gaga and particularly Cooper do much of the heavy-lifting, credit must be given to the editing job done by Jay Cassidy (Silver Linings Playbook, American Hustle)."

I'm talking mostly about how the second half is not as interesting or energetic as the first. I've seen that in at least fifteen positive reviews so far.