on the lot

[Poi Boy]

Anybody been watching ? Fox sure is getting a lot of milage out of this format. I think it has been pretty entertaining so far with a couple of stand outs in the 24hr challenge. My princess Lea fantasy however, is out the window.
Aloha
-A

[Corey Culp]

Anybody been watching ? Fox sure is getting a lot of milage out of this format. I think it has been pretty entertaining so far with a couple of stand outs in the 24hr challenge. My Princess Leia fantasy however, is out the window.
Aloha
-A

FTFY. ;)

Funny you mention the Leia issue. Not that she looks anything like she did back in the day, but I couldn't help think how difficult it would've been keeping that slave outfit image out of my head while pitching to her.

[Gbabymogul]

"Goodbye Mr. Zanuck: it certainly has been a pleasure working at 16th Century Fox." - Jean Renoir

[Corey Culp]

brett ratner uses ye olde casting couch. its 2007. what a leader to judge the youth of today.

Actually, he doesn't. If he did, Serena Williams would've been in X-Men: The Last Stand.

[Matt Garrett]

I love how he was praised for his dp skills but the girl that got sent home from his group got sent home because of the shots from her scene when one guy shot the whole thing.

[Poi Boy]

The cutting of the people working in teams did seem pretty arbitrary. If they put people in teams they should have a better way of knowing who did what.
Aloha
-A

[Sean]

I agree. Seemed totally arbitrary. Maybe the judges knew stuff we didn't...but good reasons for the elimination of those 12 candidates weren't really evident on screen. Even the belligerent dude didn't seem to warrant elimination to me, since it seemed like a lot more reality TV grandstanding than necessarily a true indication of his moral character. Certainly we weren't shown the evidence of his "weakly directed" scenes. The girls who did the "Random Acts of Kindness," however seemed to have delivered a stunning short film in a mere 24 hours. The bits I saw looked incredibly fresh and cool. Sorta shockingly good.

[Poi Boy]

Yeah, maybe the judges did know stuff we didn't, hope so. The stand out for me was "time out", outstanding for 24hrs. Overall they were better than most 24hr stuff I have seen, as they should be. You can see all the 24hr shorts at thelot.com.
Aloha
-A

[Poi Boy]

"Bret Ratner uses the casting couch" Huh ?
-A

[Steven M. Bailey]

I love how he was praised for his dp skills but the girl that got sent home from his group got sent home because of the shots from her scene when one guy shot the whole thing.

I think it came down to an ultimate responsability thing. She didn't take a pro-active role in her own scene and push hard enough for perfection. She could have shot the scene herself not knowing the talent she was paired with. Maybe it was sabotage. The gloves are off.:ph34r:

Memorable Quote
No-one is going to spent 100,000 a day on a nervous person.

[Curran Giddens]

It was kinda funny seeing all the "ooh's" and "aah's" from everyone in the audience during the one with the special effects.

[Poi Boy]

I think the "oohs" and "aahs" where well deserved. Not because the efffects where difficult but because they did it in a 24hr period and it looked good.
Aloha
-A

[Tom Lowe]

I know a couple of people who are in this show, but I haven't watched it yet. It seems like a circus to me, and something I would never subject myself to. But hey, if it's entertaining, I might tune in!

[Poi Boy]

If I wanted to make features I'd be all over it.
Aloha
-A

[Sam Druckerman]

It seems like a circus to me, and something I would never subject myself to.

Tom, I couldn't agree more.

IMO, these shows have to manipulate the coverage to create the drama they believe will capture a large market share.

I wish these shows could just focus on the "work" being done, but we all know that's not going to happen..... well, at least not until we get down to the finalist anyway.

But, it seems for many of the contestants it may be difficult to leave the show with your dignity intact. Ouch.

[Desert Rune]

But, it seems for many of the contestants it may be difficult to leave the show with your dignity intact. Ouch.

That's assuming they had any dignity to begin with. I cheered when that guy in the thick glasses got booted off the show... he was such a prick... bossing people around and making faces behind someone's back... so immature.

[Tom Lowe]

Honestly, who really wants to be the next "reality star"? No thanks. I'll keep plugging away, working hard, relying on the quality of my work, and retaining what little dignity this world has been gracious enough to grant me.

[Poi Boy]

I don't think it has to do with being a reality star, more to do with getting a great opportunity and making the most of it. If you got on this show and let your work do the talking it would be an amazing boost for your career. If you are the guys that bickers and acts an idiot well then your are the shows idiot but it is what you make it.
Aloha
-A

[Curran Giddens]

http://www.thelot.com/contestants/view/?id=18

I would have to say Zach is my favorite so far. He said he shot "Danger Zone" in 1 take but it took him 46 takes. The the special effects were cool too!

[John Moores]

I know someone who was on this show. Personally, I think if you're a kid just starting out it could be a great opportunity. If you're a 40 year old who always wanted to be a director, this is not going to help you. If you were going to actually accomplish something, you would have already done it, or you'd at least be on your way... Being good at winning a reality show does not really mean you're a good filmmaker. Everyone is looking for the shortcut to fame and money, and these shows (American Idol, Next Top Model etc etc) just provide a way for people to think "Hey, If I got on that show I could be famous too".

Now, if it was actually a case of Speilberg personally selecting the "best" candidate based on work, that'd be one thing, but in the end it's going to be a popularity contest.

Jm

[Steven M. Bailey]

A lot of life is about talent and exposure. There are alot of people in Hollywood who have very little talent but a ton of exposure. Take Anna Nichole Smith for instance. She couldn't act her way out of a paper bag, and IMHO She wasn't that geat looking either. But she had more exposure than Kodak.

I also don't see a difference between the 40yr old and the 20yr. Some people spend years working at something they hate to do because it supports the needs of their family. Maybe they got out of High school and had no support from their over bearing parents. Some people take a little more time to find out who they are, and what their passions are. More power to them.

The show is a scam, but what reality show isn't? If they can get notariaty and possibly further their careers, then great.

I personaly liked the barfing aliens. :sick: Not the best all around, but It made me LMAO. Danger Zone and Replication were also good.:biggrin:

[ericyoung]

***** uses ye olde casting couch. its 2007. what a leader to judge the youth of today.

Careful km9000 - I support free speech, and I'm sure your source is reliable, but posting that on a public forum could get you and your source in trouble unless it's proveable in a court of law! Maybe consider rephrasing your two posts, and asking Poi Boy to do the same with his quote of it!

[David Mullen ASC]

I know someone competing on the show -- she must be nearly forty, I don't know (not polite to ask....) It's a break for her, the exposure.

[Desert Rune]

Shira-Lee Shalit? 42. :detective2:

[John Moores]

David; I wonder if we are know the same person? (AS?)
I certainly don't mean to belittle anyone, but my point was, if it's going to take a reality show to launch your career (if you've been around for a while as opposed to a fresh from school person), something's not right. I come from the same socio-economic, educational/intellectual/artistic background as my friend. I've struggled for all of my adult life to get where I wanted to be, owning my own company and producing TV...I didn't need a reality show to do it for me. Would a $1 million Dreamworks deal be great right now? Absolutely. But I think in the end, those who have the drive and deep rooted desire to achieve their goals will make their own opportunities, and be successful without the need for a reality show to do it for them.

I will say this though; win or lose it's great exposure for all of them.

Jm

[donatello b]

in general it might appear that "younger " might have some advantage but
in the end i don't think AGE will matter for the contest ... there might be some agents viewing the show that may or may not think X is too old BUT bottom line for hollywood is $$$$$ = can we make some $$$$ with that talent (person)...
we all know persons that later in life changed professions and many are successful ...

[krd]

I certainly don't mean to belittle anyone, but my point was, if it's going to take a reality show to launch your career (if you've been around for a while as opposed to a fresh from school person), something's not right.

What exactly is "right"? The fact that Sophia Coppola is a "famous director"? Or say, Ron Howard? That George Clooney directs? Nora Ephron?!? Mel Gibson? Robert De Niro? David Lynch's daughter? And the list goes on....

Is it any worse to get a feature deal from a reality TV show, than being born rich and famous, or having a successful acting career? Talent without exposure is worthless, this is (after all) the movie business....

[Sean]

Judging from the list I saw of contestants, at least half are in their 30's to early 40's. Someone might be a former Wall Street trader, for example, like that one guy. He has a world of experience to draw upon in making his films. Then again, there's no doubt that being 20 gives someone some wiggle room to learn and fail in their career.

[Dan Blanchett]

There are many paths to becoming a successful filmmaker. This show is just one option, and one that did not exist 20 years ago when those 40-year-olds were only 20. Some of these people were already on their way and simply saw an opportunity. Others needed a kick in the pants. I don't begrudge them. It's a legitimate opportunity to show what they can do, even they if they don't win it all.

Not everyone can bust out with a major feature when they're 22. Many find that success later in life, and it can come from unexpected places. The trick it is to be ready (and good).

My 2 cents.

EDIT: By the way, I think Zach is an early favorite (of mine, too), although I think he'll have to prove he can make a movie without gimmicks (i.e. one-shot, heavy VFX) to win it all. Most of those 18 films were not that great, but it was fun to watch. Garry Marshall is a bit of an old fossil, and his constant remarks about the female director's POV, though well-intentioned I'm sure, came across as a little condescending and sexist. Probably the opposite of what he was trying to say--maybe it's a generational thing or I'm just overly sensitive to it.

[John Moores]

krd; you're right, there is no "correct" path to achieve one's goals, but winning a reality show just doesn't seem legitimate to me. It's like planning your retirement around winning the lottery....But if whoever wins it turns out to be a true genius, great, it won't matter how they came to be doing what they're doing. I just can't see people like Cameron, Speilberg, Rodrigues, Soderbergh...Kubrick even, needing or wanting a reality show to be their "big break". They knew what they wanted to do, and one way or another they went out and did it. The idea of a "manufactured" film director, or top model, or fashion designer etc, doesn't work for me. That's just my take on it.

While we're talking reality shows;
A Dutch reality show that claims to be trying to draw attention to a shortage of organ donors said Tuesday it will go ahead with a program in which a terminally ill woman will choose a contestant to receive one of her kidneys.

http://www.cbc.ca/arts/tv/story/2007/05/29/endemol-reality-organ.html

Great.
What's next?

Jm

[Rob Lohman]

Hmmm, it is being broadcast by a sort of 'rebel' TV station. Hadn't heard about that yet. According to Dutch law a donor is allowed to pick the person he or she donates a body part to. Only difference is that this choice is now being aired.

Weird, but I guess drawing attention to get more donors is not such a bad idea if done right.

[krd]

But if whoever wins it turns out to be a true genius, great, it won't matter how they came to be doing what they're doing. I just can't see people like Cameron, Speilberg, Rodrigues, Soderbergh...Kubrick even, needing or wanting a reality show to be their "big break". They knew what they wanted to do, and one way or another they went out and did it.

I guess what I was really trying to say was, the average Hollywood director is dispensable, easily the least talented and skilled person on the set, so that it doesn't matter much where he comes from.... USC, NYU, the loins of a celebrity, or a blasted TV show....

Maybe it's true that an outstanding talent, or at least one well adapted to Hollywood, will emerge despite bad odds. Then again, it's hard to be sure. Scorsese's student shorts wouldn't win him any prizes today, and neither he nor Francis Ford would find an equivalent today of Roger Corman for gainful work as a first or second time director.

It's a self-serving theory of mine that American filmmaking today is without vision, and the writing hackneyed, because the introverted temperament needed to conceive films (not just make them) is at odds with the financing and producing skills needed to get features made in the U.S. (with exceptions, of course--some can do it all). For that matter, look at the "On the Lot" contestants: do any of them come across as serious artists?

But that's a lament for another day, and "On the Lot" isn't looking for artsy types anyway, their mission is explicitly commercial, so who's to complain?

[Jaime Vallés]

Getting a first feature made simply requires a camera, a microphone, an editing station, and a few talented people in front of and behind the camera.

Getting a first feature film released is a whole other story.

[krd]

Getting a first feature made simply requires a camera, a microphone, an editing station, and a few talented people in front of and behind the camera.


But that's the trouble: I don't know about your own case, but the garage-budget path, with very few exceptions, has not proven to be fruitful. Just look at American independent film.

I realize it is possible to make a masterpiece with little or no money, but that event is so rare in the history of cinema that I don't believe it's a basis for identifying talent or sustaining an art form. So many films would never have succeeded, lacking the assets, performances and production values only money can buy....

[Poi Boy]

" the average Hollywood director is dispensable, easily the least talented and skilled person on the set, so that it doesn't matter much where he comes from "

That is a pretty absurd statement.
-A

[Keith Alan Morris]

Careful km9000 - I support free speech, and I'm sure your source is reliable, but posting that on a public forum could get you and your source in trouble unless it's proveable in a court of law! Maybe consider rephrasing your two posts, and asking Poi Boy to do the same with his quote of it!

yeah, i guess these guys should go on doing whatever they want, then hiding behind their lawyers because we're all scared of getting sued.

[krd]

" the average Hollywood director is dispensable, easily the least talented and skilled person on the set, so that it doesn't matter much where he comes from "

That is a pretty absurd statement.
-A

If it's really absurd, how do you account for the large number of celebrity directors and actors-turned-directors who instantly make competent films -- indeed, Oscar-winning movies on occasion, for what that's worth -- without any prior training or relevant experience? Are they all geniuses?

When someone other than the director writes the script, casts the parts, lights and blocks the shots, designs the locations, coaches the actors, edits and scores the material, etc., in what sense is the film "made by" the director? Maybe the "average Hollywood director" is more involved than that account would suggest, but he's clearly not needed to make formulaic or unremarkable Hollywood movies -- any number of people can and do succeed at it, including some with zero prior experience. In what other field of endeavor is this near-miraculous achievement possible?

Granted, the original statement is a bit of a loose cannon, not the sort of thing one might say on mature reflection, but what the hell.....

[Finner]

If it's really absurd, how do you account for the large of celebrity directors and actors-turned-directors who instantly make competent films -- indeed, Oscar-winning movies on occasion, for what that's worth -- without any prior training or relevant experience? Are they all geniuses?

Actors work day in and out on set and are in constant communication with the director and bounce ideas and thoughts off the director all the time. Also most A-list actors are very talented and very smart, to be a really good actor is not an easy thing. If an actor is inclined and has the ability a progression towards directing is quite natural. I worked with Clint Eastwood on a film he directed and he is easily one of the best directors I have had the privilege to work with. Also for every 1 good actor turned director there are many that tried and failed.


When someone other than the director writes the script, casts the parts, lights and blocks the shots, designs the locations, coaches the actors, edits and scores the material, etc., in what sense is the film "made by" the director? Maybe the "average Hollywood director" is more involved than that account would suggest, but he's clearly not needed to make formulaic or unremarkable Hollywood movies -- any number of people can and do succeed at it, including some with zero prior experience. In what other field of endeavor is this near-miraculous achievement possible?

Granted, the original statement is a bit of a loose cannon, not the sort of thing one might say on mature reflection, but what the hell.....

The directors vision and plan is the motivation for every one of the positions you list above. A good director brings together the most talented people he can on their crew and then uses their skills to help achieve the vision. You are way off of you think a director just says action and cut.

[Tom Lowe]

krd, back to your ridiculous ways.

how do you explain that a random person with no acting experience can be cast in a movie and do a great job of acting?

did you ever think that these famous actors do a good job of directing because they have a ton of experience in what it takes to make a good movie? only a very small percentage of actors become big, successful directors.

[Sean]

If it's really absurd, how do you account for the large of celebrity directors and actors-turned-directors who instantly make competent films -- indeed, Oscar-winning movies on occasion, for what that's worth -- without any prior training or relevant experience? Are they all geniuses?

When someone other than the director writes the script, casts the parts, lights and blocks the shots, designs the locations, coaches the actors, edits and scores the material, etc., in what sense is the film "made by" the director? Maybe the "average Hollywood director" is more involved than that account would suggest, but he's clearly not needed to make formulaic or unremarkable Hollywood movies -- any number of people can and do succeed at it, including some with zero prior experience. In what other field of endeavor is this near-miraculous achievement possible?

Granted, the original statement is a bit of a loose cannon, not the sort of thing one might say on mature reflection, but what the hell.....

There are directors...and then there are "directors." I think it was Louis B. Mayer who was asked who should direct a particularly outstanding screenplay they'd got their hands on. Mayer's answer was, "It's a great script. Get anybody."

When I see work by Soderbergh, or Woody Allen, or David Lynch, I don't think anyone else could have made their films. They author them in the truest sense. But obviously it's not always the case on a big budget film. There really can be a lot of people more experienced and more creative than the director who might be doing a lot of the heavy lifting.

I do note how many actors become "directors" but how few become "writers." Hmm...

[krd]

The directors vision and plan is the motivation for every one of the positions you list above. A good director brings together the most talented people he can on their crew and then uses their skills to help achieve the vision. You are way off of you think a director just says action and cut.

Yes, in theory. I know exactly what a director does, having worked as one. But a "good director" is already an idealization. The kind of work which typically gets done, can be done by many, when the crew numbers in the hundreds. Perhaps you disagree; but the substance of the debate is not whether a director is necessary, or whether he can perform vital or visionary work, but whether the typical "directing" which gets done in Hollywood actually depends on any given individual, or whether any number of other people could produce essentially the same unremarkable work, given the same resources. I say yes, and you apparently say no. But that doesn't mean I don't understand the work of directing.




krd, back to your ridiculous ways.

how do you explain that a random person with no acting experience can be cast in a movie and do a great job of acting?

Do I really have to argue that acting is an entirely different discipline, quite unlike directing? We could discuss the unique requirements of screen acting, and why amateurs can on occasion turn in remarkable performances, but that's unrelated to the question of the skill set of inexperienced directors and provides no clue as to why inexperienced directors often turn in professional work in Hollywood.


did you ever think that these famous actors do a good job of directing because they have a ton of experience in what it takes to make a good movie? only a very small percentage of actors become big, successful directors.

No, I don't. They do a good job directing, straight out of the gate, because they're relying on a highly talented crew of hundreds and tens of millions of dollars which buys expertise in all departments. Again, a simple difference of opinion, which evidently makes me "ridiculous", since I don't agree with you.

[krd]

When I see work by Soderbergh, or Woody Allen, or David Lynch, I don't think anyone else could have made their films. They author them in the truest sense.

No argument from me here! I'm talking about the more or less generic directing which goes on in Hollywood and much of TV, and which is predominant in the industry.

I believe in the director and the auteur! What I don't believe in is "a film by _______", when the bugger had virtually nothing to do with creation of the material or its visual realization, that work being the contribution of the writer, the DoP and the editor.


I do note how many actors become "directors" but how few become "writers." Hmm...

About the same number of actors who become accomplished violinists, maybe because they played one in the movies....

I think we're really on the same side here.

[Finner]

Yes, in theory. I know exactly what a director does, having worked as one. But a "good director" is already an idealization. The kind of work which typically gets done, can be done by many, when the crew numbers in the hundreds. Perhaps you disagree; but the substance of the debate is not whether a director is necessary, or whether he can perform vital or visionary work, but whether the typical "directing" which gets done in Hollywood actually depends on any given individual, or whether any number of other people could produce essentially the same unremarkable work, given the same resources. I say yes, and you apparently say no. But that doesn't mean I don't understand the work of directing.



Sure I agree anyone can step in and try a fill the position of a director and they can ride the back of a skilled DP and other skilled crew. I do question a little bit though on if you really do understand the most important thing a director does. I may misunderstand your posts but it seems like you are bitter about not getting breaks and seem to want to do every job all by yourself which brings me back to what I feel is the most important job of a director. Leadership, leadership that finds the best people to help make the film and respects the cast and crew so they give their best in return. Filmaking is a team effort and if a director hires weak talent or can only attract weak talent because of their attitude and try and do everything themself they will fall short. If a director is fortunate enough to work with a strong script and talented cast and crew and leads well the job will be quite easy and more often then not a good film will follow. If a director struts around with a big ego and trys to do everything themselves good luck producing anything but a flop.

[Poi Boy]

KDR, on THIS subject you are totally full of shit.
Aloha
-A

[Finner]

Ya what he said.

[krd]

KDR, on THIS subject you are totally full of shit.
Aloha
-A



Ya what he said.

Delightful! That says it all! I'm full of shit and ridiculous because I don't adequately appreciate LEADERSHIP and don't believe that the art of cinema would suddenly go dark without the likes of Gary Marshall (since we're talking about On the Lot).

As for the substance of Finner's prior post, you misread me. I'm not interested in performing all functions on a film, or strutting on the set. That's not the issue under discussion, and I don't know where you got it. Not from me, in any event.

Anyway, further comments will go unanswered, so help yourselves.

[Finner]

A sense of humour and the ability to handle criticism would probably serve you well also.

[Steven M. Bailey]

Who voted for the taxi cab guy? Is this another case of vote for the worst at work? At least the guy with the "please hold" was relitively well shot, and made sense from some sort of humor.

You want to talk about what happens when your director sucks? Read the post on www.wordplayer.com about how Godzilla got made.

[ericyoung]

yeah, i guess these guys should go on doing whatever they want, then hiding behind their lawyers because we're all scared of getting sued.

Not at all. You're a adult and can choose to take that risk or not. I personally wouldn't post it on a public forum though unless I could back it up with proof. Otherwise it just becomes one person's word against another. Not that I doubt you and your friend, but there are plenty of other cases where people have been unjustly accused by a person with a grudge. That's why there are libel laws, even if those laws may be abused by the guilty.

I doubt it would go as far as being sued - probably just a demand for the posting to be removed.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

A director provides good taste. I always see the world in two kinds of employments: Doers and Enablers. Directors are Enablers. Directors don't "Do" anything. You could be Stephen Hawkins and ride around in your wheel chair and type out messages all day long without touching or doing anything. Your actors are going to perform. Your crew is going to shoot the movie. All you can do is try as hard as you can to help them achieve the best result they can.

Even if every single person in the crew is brilliant Leonardo Davinci of their field brilliant, if they aren't all making the same movie it's going to be a complete mess.

I've seen directors try to "Do" to try to make the movie and it's a disaster because they aren't fast enough. They can't do enough to keep in front of the crushing wave. I've also seen crews try to operate without any input from the director and even a competant crew will crash and burn without someone making those arbitrary decisions such as "will this couch be red or blue?"

It's that balance when directing where you get a hundred really great ideas from talented people you're working with and you have to figure out which one is consistant. It's often not a question of what is good and what is bad. Any screenplay can be told a million different ways, many of them just as good as another, but you have to tell it ONE way otherwise it's a mess.

[Poi Boy]

Michael Bay, guest judge, what an arrogant self important schmuck !
-A

[Clint Johnson]

Michael Bay, guest judge, what an arrogant self important schmuck !
-A

Actually I thought it was nice to have someone point out the shortcomings... it would have been nicer if he had been more specific but I did agree with him more than not. Cary is too worried about being liked and Gary is too worried about making sure that there are more women directors- irregardless of competence.

Bay should have been there to comment on the POS "Wack Alley Cab" or whatever it was called. The only reason I can see anyone voting for that is to keep seeing the train wreck in progress.

"On the Lot" looks amateurish and poorly thought out. Watching it you would think that it was one of the first "talent" reality shows out there and they were learning as they went. I am not a fan of reality shows and the only reason I am watching this is because I am interested in being a film maker... but I sat through an episode of "American Idol" this year and while it is just a boring karaoke contest at least it is competently done.

[Sean]

On the Lot does seem surprisingly shaky in execution and design. Even the hostess seems like a second-stringer. Maybe it's just too complicated, getting all those filmmakers making all those films. Too many variables. One thing is for sure, it isn't going to find the "best" filmmaker. Because the guy who gets voted off today might make the best film of the bunch tomorrow. I don't think it's as cut-and-dried as picking "the best singer."

[Poi Boy]

Yeah, he pointed out shortcomings, that is good. His comment to one guy that his story sounded familiar, been done before, something to that effect. It would have been fun if the contestant has said something like "oh, you mean like Transformers?". Bay seemed like a schmuk to me.
Aloha
-A

[Clint Johnson]

Yes, it is a lot more complex than picking the "better" singer... and it may be that they spent months trying to figure some way to make On the Lot work as a reality show.

I think that they made a mistake with the public voting and I'm guessing that they are getting maybe 1% of the number of votes that American Idol gets. It should have been the judges and/or the participants themselves who decided.

Maybe they could have broken them into two groups and pitted the teams against each other for the first several episodes before breaking it out into individual?

They could have handed both teams the same script and the teams each would have to pick the member who could best tackle it? The two film makers would go off and make the short. The resulting shorts could go head to head on the next episode where the contestants could all vote on the best version without knowing which one was shot by their team mate.

But is this to find an auteur film maker who is a writer, director, DoP and editor? Maybe they needed to break it into competitions for each of these skills with points awarded for their performance in each category?

Give them a writing assignment and send it through a batch of professional readers with points given for the response they get?

Commission a set of scripts for them to direct that all have a similar set of problems to solve and then let a group of professional editors try to make the shots work- with the contestants voting on the resulting shorts without knowing who did what?

I think that one of the bigger problems is they are looking at it with a vague auteur theory POV and that doesn't work for most of the contestants... or most film makers for that matter. A good writer doesn't make a good directer doesn't make a good DoP doesn't make a good editor... if you are good at any one of those you are ahead of the game.

I wrote, directed and edited my indie pilot and I plan to add DoP on my next project... but I'm a doofus.

[Dan Blanchett]

I think that one of the bigger problems is they are looking at it with a vague auteur theory POV and that doesn't work for most of the contestants... or most film makers for that matter. A good writer doesn't make a good directer doesn't make a good DoP doesn't make a good editor... if you are good at any one of those you are ahead of the game.

I think this is the main problem, the other being the format. After looking forward to this show I am pretty disappointed and even annoyed with how they chose to structure it. The judges suck, the format sucks, it's BORING to watch. I thought the first couple of episodes were okay but now that we don't get to see much if any of the filmmaking process, it's falling apart. Project Greenlight (season 3), while not perfect, was more entertaining and informative. The final film ended being total crap, but at least we got to see more behind the scenes... which for me is what made it worth watching.

[number6]

But it is, after all, television. Not a training film for movie makers. I for one liked some of the work presented, (I actually loved "Getta Room!" which the judges panned because of percieved political incorrectness). This week, I was blown away by the musical the guy put together by finding a location, then writing a very nice production around it. And while I'm not learning the technical stuff (I get that on this forum) from the show, I get a sense of the gut-wrenching emotion the director/contestants are going through. I don't like reality shows either, but On the Lot doesn't make me feel like I'm a Paris Hilton tape voyeur. I actually am dissappointed when the hour is over.

But then, I'm more audience than movie maker at present. Maybe I will learn to hate it as I become more of a movie maker.

[Dan Blanchett]

Don't get me wrong, I like some of the work too, just not how they are choosing to present it (absent the filmmaking process and with poor judges). As it stands, the "show" is probably better off being internet-only. IMHO

[Poi Boy]

I think we are jaded movie makers in general here at red.net and it is very easy to poo poo The Lot, and say 'Well that is just beneath me", yeah right. I would challenge others here to do better within the same confines. The Musical piece was very impressive given how difficult that is to pull off.
Aloha
-A

[Dan Blanchett]

I don't think anyone is poo pooing the actual films (well, at least not me), just the show and how it's put together. Some of the movies are indeed quite impressive, especially under the circumstances. I just wish we could see more of the "circumstances" and less of Carrie Fisher! The musical was probably my favorite out of the five shown.

[Poi Boy]

I guess I don't care too much about the failings of the show, it is television. I like seeing the films and I too would like more of the behind the scenes stuff.
Aloha
-A

[Dan Blanchett]

I hear ya. The show is probably going to be cancelled though. They already cut back from Mon/Tue to just Tuesday, and now for the next 3 weeks we get to watch old "submission films" instead of seeing new material. I think the writing is on the wall.

[Shawn Nelson]

Wait, these aren't old submission films, they said they made them in 5 days. You could have taken months to make the submission film.

Also I am confused, I thought the show gave them access to The Lot gear, sets, and actors. But yet all the directors talked about 'pulling in favors' to get their gear.

[Dan Blanchett]

Wait, these aren't old submission films, they said they made them in 5 days. You could have taken months to make the submission film.

Fox was misleading the viewers. Yeah, they took 5 days, but these "personal films" were made before the show even started, or so I read. I'll find the link...

Here it is:
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20040769_20040772_20041498,00.html

[Poi Boy]

Fox...what do you expect, the same station that brings you Hannity !
-A

[Joel Kaye]

Fox...what do you expect, the same station that brings you Hannity !
-A

Yeah, I guess they specialize in fiction. Somehow you'd think that would work in our favor, but it doesn't seem to turn out that way.

[Rob Lohman]

Failing ratings, they're no doubt slashing the budget big time. One would expect they would guide these new directors to see if they can GROW. However, with failing ratings and thus lower budgets they'll just have them rehash their old movies or make some new ones without the lot's help.

Completely failed on its promise from the first few episodes.

[Joel Kaye]

Completely failed on its promise from the first few episodes.

Film School rule #1: Don't make movies about making movies.

When I first heard the idea for On the Lot I wondered how many people really would be interested. Seems too niched.

An American Idol for actors would probably work better.