I know that no movie could (or should) ever attempt to be an exact copy of another, but I can't help thinking (hoping?) that the combination of Frank Darabont, Stephen King, Thomas Newman, and a "prison setting" will create another masterpiece as enjoyable as THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION.

Sony Classical is reportedly releasing the score in early December.

I'm 60% through the book - what an captivating story.

Be sure to look for updates here:
http://tn-page.movie.nl/index.htm

Todd

An interesting tidbit, this movie scored over 90% approval rate in it's first test screening (one of the highest Warner Bros. has ever gotten) which basically means that 9 out of 10 people loved it. That has to account for something.

Humble,

When you are the creative force behind a project, you have the whole "vision" in your mind from the start. The trick is to get it out of your head and onto the screen. In the midst of that process, it's hard to know how much you are actually communicating and how much you are just seeing because you know what it's supposed to look like. That is what an objective eye (i.e. "test audience") can help with.

Which leads me back to the topic at hand -- a 90% approval rating on the GREEN MILE is outstanding!! I'm more excited than ever, now.

You argument about Episode 1 does not wash Widescreen. George tested his film on fellow filmmakers, not on the general public.

I have not been to filmschool (yet),but if they teach you that filmmaking is first a business and then art, well, so be it.

Lastly,imagine telling Stephen King or Hemingway for that matter, to test their novels on "test readers" and then to re-write any section the reader did not like. They'd be crying murder.
A painter: Change that tree on the edge there DaVinci. Yeah right.
Singers, songwriters, photographers,all these people do not test their work, why do filmmakers have to,(and I would argue that most directors don't like the process themselves but bow down to the pressure of those mindless so called excecutives). Just because this is a business first? In that case, writers,composers,etc. are all businessmen.

That's all I got. Sorry, I know you guys tried and I try to have an open mind but no one can convince me yet, I still hate those screenings.

I don't live in Hollywood and I have never been in a test screening, but I would hope that the process is not quite so simplistic as that. I would hope that the questionnaire (which I assume they fill out as the price for getting to see the movie early) asks things such as: What was your general impression of this character? Did you think the love story between [X] and [Y] was believable? Were there any plot points that were confusing and not adequately explained? Was the ending convincing? etc. To my mind, that kind of feedback would be helpful and not at all "limiting" for a director.

However, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they only ask "Would you recommend this movie?" If so, how dumb.

Why not just ask, "How much would you pay to see this movie?" and use the statistical mean to set ticket prices at the box office. A Meryl Streep or Tom Hanks movie might cost $8.00 or $10.00, but one with Jim Carrey would only run you about $2.50. (Is my bias showing?)

Hmmm. . . .

Please know that I respect your opinion about test screenings, and I would suggest holding on to it for purity's sake. But keep in mind that if you keep that as your firm belief, when you get to the level that these filmmakers in the business are, that will be a constant source of struggle between you and the stuido you work for. Case in point: Getting final cut (final say over a film) is usually reserved for proven, if not lucky, directors.

Your comparisons of this practice of test screenings to artists and writers, etc. are like comparing apples to oranges. Those artists earned the respect through their continued work so that eventually their style developed to the point that no one could tell them what to do - as in the case in point of director's final cut privileges. Even Stephen King is guided by an editor and publisher. Are you suggesting that no one creative should be guided- to live on the first drafts and assume they'll succeed? If that were the case, there would so many more disappointments at the movies, so many paintings that had no soul, and so many more books that "do nothing" for people.

Protect art, but don't deny it a potential tool.

Still, like it or not, the point is clear. Test screenings happen- kind of like a well-known substance...

To case one: Like Sebulba I have been to one test screening. They do ask more than one question and that is my point. I mean guys, do you know how many people are out there who did not understand Schindler's List, or The Blair Withch Project ( I could go on).

Case two: George Lucas asked FELLOW filmakers about their opinion, people who share his knowledge and craft. I'ts like John Williams asking the auidence "how do you like my score for JFK?" versus asking Jerry Goldsmith a man John admires very much (as do I). Who's going to be able to give a more precise and develop critism on grounds of the art itself? The audience or Mr. Goldsmith. So again, the comparision is flawed (in my view).

Case three:I'm still waiting for anyone to mentioned any movie ever helped by a test audience.

Case four: While filmaking in our great country is seen as business first than as art, in Europe it is the other way around.Now, my European friends, I haven't lived there in so long but do you guys have any test screenings there? SFT?
In essence, if Europe can do with out (provided they still do not adhere to this practice)and if art comes before business over there, why not here?

Case five: An editor does not guide the writer and even if they do that would compare to the producer working with the director.No test readers involved.

Conclusion: Yes, some artist in other fields are helped periodically by other individuals. Yet these people are knowledgeable about the craft themselves. They are artists as well. Again, an editor works with writers day by day, you can't compare that with a director and a test audience. It would have to be compared to the director and the producer.
I don't know of any painter who has been able to instill more soul into his art through the suggestion of any other outside source than his own imagination. I paint and draw myself and I never change a picture that comes from deep within for anyone (then again I don't ever sell them, I give them away).

I know you guys are working on me and believe me I WANT to change my view on this so I'm not in the minority anymore (it's so lonely here ) yet the arguments presented, while very good indeed, just don't do it. Ahhhh, perhaps I'm just a thickheaded Irish/German bull!!!

With love,

...creation of the devil, hahahaahhahah...real funny...