Test Pattern

No tears for Hollywood’s pathetic dependence on test screenings and whether those results should be reported (“Previews--How Early Is Too Early?” by Patrick Goldstein, Feb. 6).

Columbia marketing chief Sid Ganis says, “You can’t write about something that’s essentially artistic . . . as if it’s just business.” Right. What is the first thing the studios advertise in the trades after a movie’s opening weekend? Good reviews? Hardly. How much money the movie made is the only criterion these people care about.

The problem with the studios’ reliance on test results and not going with the gut reaction of the director’s cut is that they are always searching for the audience’s lowest common denominator. Sometimes deliberately appealing to that kind of audience can work and the grosses can be huge. But that kind of audience is frequently fickle and can sway with every faddish breeze.

If the studios insist they can’t live without test screenings, then at least they should target the taste makers, people who passionately like or dislike the art they’ve just been exposed to. These are the kind of people who will get their friends to see something that they would not have ordinarily wanted to see. They pick up the enthusiasm and spread it around.

“Blade Runner,” “Heaven’s Gate,” “Brazil” and now “I’ll Do Anything” are all films that probably would have done better business in their original form. Those films were designed to appeal to people of taste. The studios hired name directors, paid for exceptional actors, got great scripts and got cold feet when the films did not attract LCDs (lowest- common- denominator types). What did they expect?

When all is said and done, there is only one guarantee for box-office success in this town--great word of mouth. Ask Heidi Fleiss.

JOHN G. HILL

Pacoima

I suppose I should be flattered that “Toys” producer Mark Johnson thinks my off-the-cuff comment to Bryant Gumbel had such a decisive impact on that film’s box-office performance, but I’m afraid he gives me too much credit.

Pressed by Gumbel to name the likeliest loser of the ’92 holiday season, I did mention “Toys,” but Johnson’s suggestion that I made this prediction long before the movie was finished is mistaken. In fact, that “Today” show interview aired less than three weeks before the movie opened. And it’s not true that no one had seen the film at that point. “Toys” had already been screened for my West Coast staff, who provided me with a depressingly accurate assessment of its prospects.

Of course, I sympathize with the frustration of filmmakers trying to produce creative and innovative work in the face of second-guessing from the press. And an ambitious, unconventional film like “Toys” must be a particular challenge. But blaming the movie’s failure at the box office on the smattering of early bad press it received is a bit of a stretch. “Toys” wasn’t hurt by leaks during the preview screening process, but by the reaction of critics and the public to the film itself.

JAMES MEIGS

New York

Meigs, then movie editor at Entertainment Weekly, is now editor of US Magazine.