>>213091175
poor test screening results whenever the dog was near any kind of danger, gunn faced the same issue with superman but had more authority over the final cut than some no name director
>>213091897
Weren't multiple movies reshot and changed because of test screenings and they still flopped after all those changes? Why do they keep doing this?
>>213092086 >waste money on test screenings >change the movie according to what those retards said, wasting even more money >movie flops anyway
Great risk aversion.
Movie could've flopped even if they didn't change it, but they would've saved money on all the reshoots etc.
>>213092717
Testing your movie out on a sample size of your target audience is a sound strategy. The problem is that the sampled audience members tend to be fucking dumbasses and studio execs are out of touch retards who take their word as gospel.
>>213092779
Believe in your movie, wtf is this test screenings shit in the first place? Believe in your vision or how flimsy is your direction, script, production of your movie? Plenty of filmmakers hate their critics anyway. So now they care about criticism, because they saw it early, what? Makes no sense.
>The decision to cut Magnus from the film wasn't without controversy. "I loved that little pupper!" Spaeny laughs. "But you know, when his trainer was having us bond during pre-production, I'd come back to my boyfriend smelling like wet fur and snausages. So it just wasn't sustainable in the long run."
>>213094315
Fake news it was just the photographer's dog and they decided to include the dog in some promo photo. For the better because we now have another iconic photo of Isabela.
