This sounds incredible. I would love to enter in this, but I do not have the time right now to make a film. Here is the link to the site! http://www.thelot.com/

"ON THE LOT
On the Lot is the groundbreaking new show brought to you by reality show mastermind, Mark Burnett, and legendary producer and director, Steven Spielberg. Over the season, the 16 filmmakers will produce short films in every genre every week and the viewers will vote on who gets eliminated. The winning filmmaker will take home a $1 Million development deal!"

I hope someone here on DVinfo.net could enter in this!
~Gabriel

Now this is Reality TV I can get behind. Looking forward to it.

I finally broke down and submitted, though I need to re-do it; I didn't realize you now needed an intro. So I'm doing that this weekend.

heath

I'll be glad to star in anyone's film, although I will need to split the winnings 70/30 my way.


Seriously though, Heath I hope you or someone from the board does well, wins it. I immediately thought about you guys.

I do a mean Elvis though, if anyone is interested.

Thanks, man. Elvis, eh? I'll tell my frequent co-writer. He once did a short with Elvis!

heath

Awesome! Its great to hear that people here are interested. As much as I would like to enter, I cant. I am very bummed about that. But hey, if it makes it, I'll enter next time. :D

Waiting to hear more,
~Gabriel

The one bummer I see is that you do all the work to make those short films, and guess who owns the rights to them... I haven't looked at the contracts, but I would guess that the Fox lawyers haven't left many crumbs on the table.

isn't youtube.com commanding just as many viewers as Fox?

This is true, but at the same time, you are getting a chance to meet Steven Spielberg, and a $1 million contract with dreamworks. Thats, what I think makes it worth while. Plus the experience of getting behind real equipment and being with real actors. Now that, sounds like a great offer!

~Gabriel

Fox doesn't own the rights like you think. Go to www.thelot.com to learn more. Sci Fi's contest was a little more hard core.

The difference between YouTube and On The Lot is that YouTube isn't offering a potential $1 million first-look deal with DreamWorks.

heath

Not yet anyway... I am sure Google will come up
with a $10,000,000 contest deal soon enough....

Google does have a TV channel called Current TV that consists mostly of “Viewer Created Content” All you do is post your work on this website and if a lot of people likes it, its gets on TV. You do get paid if it’s on the air. A lot of the programs that gets on the air even comes from High School and College students.

That would be something indeed if Google were to offer 10 million dollars for the best program. That much money is nothing to them but I don’t think they would ever go that high.

I could go on and on about what they offer but its best to go on their website and check it out. http://www.current.tv/

I'd love to at least try to enter this but I've got my college courses to think about. Plus, I'm waiting to see how the first (and hopefully not last) season goes before I try for it. My biggest fear is that it will get turned into a "Project Greenlight" and only focus on the negative drama that ensues.

Also, I'd just plain like to see how the show affects the people on it, from what I understand, you have to come up with something to film in a different genre for each episode or two? That's pretty hardcore for me at the moment as far as the maturity of my creative process goes =).

This looks like fun. It's nice to see times like these when anyone with grocery store budget gets a chance at public awareness, opinion, and exposure. So, even if you don't win the grand prize, you have to assume that folks of influence in this industry will at least see your work... lot's of possibilities here.

yeah the "meet" with spielberg is probably a 30min-1hour lunch from which he leaves and goes off directing his next feature or 'produce' somn. $1mil is given only if you give up control of the final cut. i'm always skeptical of things like this because it's a sign of desperation from hollywood.

armed with HDV+distribution places like youtube or even your own website. why not go direct. it takes just as much effort, time, $ as it does regular studios, but at the end you will own your own content (if you hook up with the right lawyers). i think hollywood is afraid of the next big hit coming out of online places that will bypass the huge chain of middlemen that hold the $. when that day comes, moviemaking will be even more even bigger. that's why they are casting their net very very far.

ah well, what do i know. just another joe's opinion.

i'm always skeptical of things like this because it's a sign of desperation from hollywood.

Bingo.

This is even more confirmation that the decentralization of media distribution is starting to crumble Hollywood. The problem for them is that too many of us independent filmmakers are not motivated by riches and fame, but by disgust for what media and advertising is doing to our children.

... though i'm fairly sure all of us wouldn't mind the fortune part once in a while ;).

I have to agree, I think it's the thrill of doing. The money may be good for the top 10%, but I think you're bound to having your script rewritten, or losing control in some fashion. Going by way of Hollywood, I can emagine that you're chances depend much on the satisfying a few individuals, rather than the entire and diverse audience at a local indie event.

I cannot fathom getting rich trying to make a movie in this way, and very much happy that I have a job producing simple corporate video. Occasionally I'll get a crack on doing something big on a small scale, an event, or signing up for a contest. I never expect to gain fame and fortune from any of this. Free of such pressures, it is purely the rush of the being part of something, and the accomplishment of setting a goal and making it. That's what counts.

Someone will pound their chest and declare that this thinking is wrong. That it's an excuse. Just remember that you only have so much time on this earth, and if you waste it pursuing money, you'll miss out on all the fun. Really.

If this isn't sinking in, then go visit your local cemetery, gaze upon the stones and remember that it's over for 'them'. The wealthier ones will have bigger stones than the poorer ones. But the truely richer ones will have 'lived' their lives doing exactly what they wanted.

I don't think there is a problem in making money or not in this business. For me, making money would be to pay my bills, live comfortably and do this full time. That's why I'm taking a shot at On The Lot.

Plus, I want to try and bring my company's mission statement to Hollywood: "Produce good, quality movies." And it doesn't matter what kind of movies they are, as long as they're good and of a fine quality.

heath

From what I've read so far, Mr. Spielberg is only confirmed to be a part of the show when the winner is announced. He may have a few comments here and there, but he's only there to give out the prize. As for the $1 mil prize, it's a development deal, not a production budget. Most likely, you'll use that to crank out scripts and bring ideas to producers at Dreamworks, and they will decide to finance it. So basically, it's a leg-up, but it won't guarantee that anything will be made. Consider it a big stipend, and Spielberg himself said that it's essentially a huge discretionary fund. So you could, I guess, make a film if you really wanted to. But with that budget, I don't think it will get you far in Hollywood.

A $1 million development deal isn't anything to look down upon! Besides, working on scripts and film development at Dreamworks is a dream-come-true! Even if no movies get made, you can probably go far with the cred.

heath

Well, I think most of what has been said here is true to some degree. But, in my thoughts, its not about the million dollar deal, or Spielberg, or even winning. I think, if you can get on the show, and if you are like me, if you are someone with a real passion for what you are doing, and a drive to make films. Someone watching is bound to say, "I want you, to come work on my film. I can tell you have a passion for what you do, I like that, I think you will make it far. Now, come join me!". Ok so, maybe that is a little over board on the hole saying for them. But still, I think you all can get the point of what I was saying. I do not mean to step on anyones toes or anything.. I am just saying, that even if you don't win, maybe someone will want you and you may even become bigger then the one person who won.

Meryem Ersoz, said to me before I even had a camera, she said to me "if an 18-year-old kid came to me with that kind of initiative, i'd hire him on the spot, because he would have all the other elements in place, and using manual controls on a more expensive camera would be just a matter of practice and time spent on whatever camera i will be providing employees four years from now....". That is what I am talking about, its not about the money or gear, its about you.

~Gabriel

Yeah, when one gets on a show like this, people take notice. And the fact that anyone puts their film up for the world to see and criticize, well, that's taking a chance. And that is a great thing!

heath

A $1 million development deal isn't anything to look down upon!That's completely true. My post wasn't trying to downplay that -- a few other posts though made it seem like this was the ticket to getting your movies made. And I was just commenting on the actual particulars that I've read. I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade.

Also, I forgot to mention that from what I've read, it's primarily a filmmaker *and* a producer thing. One director makes the movie, while the others on the team are supposed to be getting actors and arranging things. (I think it's already been mentioned that a professional crew is provided.) There was a recent news release about how part of the drama is seeing if the producer teams would be able to get bigger name stars into their productions.

In my opinion, whoever wins this thing will need to not rest on their laurels at having won the contest. It's a big foot in the door, but they'll need to use all their savvy to stay in the Hollywood game long after the prize is awarded. My main concern is the stigma of being a reality show winner. I just wonder how open Dreamworks will be to the winner's development ideas afterwards, or if they will be politely treated as that-person-who-won. The only reality show winners that seem to go on to any real success are the American Idol people, and contractually, they're pretty much owned for the rest of their lives by the American Idol people.

You bring up a good point, and it's something I tell people all the time. Be a writer or a producer or a director, and find someone else to do the other stuff. It's so hard to be excellent at one thing if you're wearing a ton of hats.

Producing is easier for me than directing, but I am now focusing on directing only. I may help develop a project and get co-producer credit, but for the most part, I'm focusing on directing only.

heath

u guys remember project greenlight? damon+affleck started that a few years ago. same premise, same amount of $. none of the directors from the series have "made it" after the series. they even changed their focus to horror by season 3.

so... there you go =D. just work hard, contest or no contest.

True, true, but any opportunity is good, I think.

hwm

Yup. Access to the right people with a familiar passion. Like Gabriel points outs, winning or not, you're there with a back stage pass and folks looking at you with a vested interest. Can't get better attention than that. Even if you don't win, these folks are going to be brutally honest, and advice like that is still money in your pocket.

Sorry folks; I didn't mean to hit any nerves or turn this into a philosophical debate. I was just projecting into words my own fear of 'selling out'. I would love to be compensated according to the passion I put into a project, whether it be a film or something else, but I find that is rarely the case and commercial viability always includes some sort of compromise in quality.

The announcement of this new show annoyed me in how it will further glorify the financial incentives of an otherwise artistic business. I believe that in some respects, art and business are mutually exclusive. What has happened with the music industry is really quite disappointing. Small record labels have popped up everywhere, adopting the business strategies of larger labels because of the extreme profit margin in exploiting the artist. We must not let this happen to the independent film industry.

That said, there is great value in publicizing the indie business, as everyone else has posted about. If the mass market becomes interested in indie film, the distribution channels we need may very well be demanded.

Ultimately the distribution channels/networks will determine our fame and profit, so I'm hoping that we don't become so motivated by greed and ego that we compromise our art to package a product for the widest market.


I will definitely watch one or two episodes, especially if someone from this board is featured.

I wouldn't call it "selling out..." Let me ask you something, if you made a certain type of film that only you like, and no one else (trust me, I've seen these types of movies), would it be selling out if you decided to change your style so more people will dig it, and enjoy it?

heath

I wouldn't call it "selling out..." Let me ask you something, if you made a certain type of film that only you like, and no one else (trust me, I've seen these types of movies), would it be selling out if you decided to change your style so more people will dig it, and enjoy it?


Good point. I think I'm not sure anymore how I would define that term. Maybe it has more to do with the internal motivations of the filmmaker than the external rewards.

However, if I made some cool movies, spanning different genres, including kids movies, but never made a lot of money, then suddenly decided to do run-of-the-mill, formulaic movies (again, different genres) just to make a buck, that might be considered selling out.

heath

It's not a well-designed concept. Every week, there'll be a set of half-baked movies from the same 16 filmmakers. That's not at all like real life. I don't think the weekly elimination method can work for movie-making at all.

But it's not going to be about the films. It's going to be about the filmmakers working under pressure and the judges' reactions and votes. That's the drama. Not the films themselves.

The musical equivalent to this show is a variant of American Idol in which each contestant is expected to compose a new song every week, complete with instrumental arrangements and a music video to be judged by viewers!!

You say it's about what goes on behind the scenes, and not about the quality of the rushed films. If so, what is Steven Spielberg doing on the set? Why give a 10 million dollar film development contract to a winner that may or may not be able to produce good films if given enough time to do so?

There's also a big question of whether people care about what goes on behind the scenes of movies, but with the Apprentice being so successful with boardroom drama, I guess it's possible to make people care about such things.

My filmmaking reality TV show would be based on the American Idol model. The filmmakers will create short films every week based on popular scenes from existing movies. But since the success of such shorts depends on actors, I'll require each filmmaker to register with a fixed size cast and crew.

Seun,

My comment comes from watching America's Next Supermodel, or whatever it's called. (My teenage daughter loves it.)

Sure, we see the models do photo shoots and make videos, but the real focus is on their emotional reactions and professionalism (or lack thereof). The judges talk as much about the models' attitudes as much as their talent.

Consider that Spielberg might not care so much about how great the films are *today* from these filmmakers in the rough. If I were in his shoes I would look for somebody who can tell a great story, who has a unique voice, who can work long and hard under pressure, who delivers on time, who works well with the cast and crew, who doesn't break down or lash out, and who is enthusiastic about learning. Oh yeah, and somebody who is charismatic and outgoing enough to get out there and obtain future funding and help market and promote their works. Technical ability would be secondary - that can be taught.

The filmmaker with the best films might not be the one with the most potential.

I'm going to submit my latest short, a five minute drama. It has it's share of technical flaws but it is worth submitting.

When the show does air, it will be interesting to see how it is edited. It wil be very interesting to see if filmmakers--people who should know something about edting--will fall prey to the typical reality TV tricks where something you said/did a week ago is cut against something totally different in order to manufacture drama.

American Idol is still doing this today. After they show tens of idiots singing poorly and getting kicked out of the room they later show these same people all singing the same current hit song--not the song they sang in front of the judges. The room looks the same and they will even cut to reaction shots of Simon looking annoyed. But there is no way these people were singing the goofy current hit in front of the 3 key judges.

Yes, I think you are right Jon.. This will be like Americas Next Top-Model but in film (sister loves it).

Brian; this will be interesting... I hope that they do not completely humiliate people and twist things to the point that it is just flat out wrong.

And American Idol has a side showing room that they do that in, I have seen it is one of the episodes where they where walking someone out the door, you could see it in the background.

~Gabriel

those of you that actually get on the show, create your own dramas. don't be 'truthful' or 'be yourself'. become a 'character'. if it was me i'd be a drama queen =P.

I'm also curious as to how they will do the 'challenges'. I can only see this working for very short shorts, like commercial spots. Or if they use the same actors/settings for each film. And if there are no recognizable actors, how appealing can it be to the general public?

How I see it: many cameos by TV actors under contract, using partner production company's existing movie sets and crew, and prewritten storyboards with maybe one or two key shots left to finish. Of course, putting such powerful resources in the hands of an indie filmmaker could be very exciting to watch. I just don't know how they will be able to cover more than one or two filmmakers in each episode without seriously compromising the creative quality of the films or the credit to the cast/crew. Behind-the-scenes specials typically focus on one week of a film shoot and they have no trouble making a solid half or full hour of programming.

i had to say something here. Those of you who have already or are thinking of submitting your films, don't ever forget that you're dealing with FOX... Aside from all the tricky editing they'll do for the show to make you look like a jackass, there's lots worse things they can do, except on the legal side of things.

Do yourselves a favor and go the the following link and read the "Career Control" segment. THAT is EXACTLY what i'm expecting the winning filmmaker to get in the end, besides the lure of a $1 million contract. And in case you missed the line i'm thinking of, here's a paste of it:
"In essence, the agreement stipulates that the finalists are "forever and throughout the universe" properties of 19 Management." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_idol_controversy

And for god's sake, i don't want to hear people saying "but it'll be different for filmmakers!!!". No. It won't. It's FOX. They're gonna "legally" rape their victims.

Raji makes a critical point. Their lawyers are better than your lawyer. And if your lawyer wants to change a single word in the contract, they won't let you near "the lot".

It's FOX. They're gonna "legally" rape their victims.

They probably have this on t-shirts and banners on the fox lot.

They probably have this on t-shirts and banners on the fox lot.
lol that was awesome

I'm not doing it simply because even in the event I got on the show, or even won, I'd have the tagline "the guy who won that show." The industry would never take someone seriously after that. They'd all know the "real" reason you got there. Because you won "some contest."

Good luck creating any kind of movie after you build your career off a Fox show. Tinseltown at it's finest.

Ben,

I don't know if that would be the case. If you won the Fox show, Fox might just pump up your career, help you make the right contacts, help market your properties (er, their properties), etc. Or, they might drop you like a rock.

Not that all indie directors control their careers and destiny... The thing about the Fox show is that you would knowingly give up what little control you have. That could be really bad. But it could also be really good. But somebody else gets to make that decision.

Ben,

I don't know if that would be the case. If you won the Fox show, Fox might just pump up your career, help you make the right contacts, help market your properties (er, their properties), etc. Or, they might drop you like a rock.

Not that all indie directors control their careers and destiny... The thing about the Fox show is that you would knowingly give up what little control you have. That could be really bad. But it could also be really good. But somebody else gets to make that decision.
I'm with Ben on this one... let me put it this way, Jon. Do you remember any contestants from American Idol? :D And if by some miracle, you do, do you really have any respect for them? I for one think of them exactly as Ben described it: "some guy/girl who won some contest". And it gets worse when i hear their songs.

I hate to be so negative about this but i just don't have any faith in reality shows in general. When i first came across the On The Lot show, it was actually going to be an HBO series. I wish i could document that but i swear it's true! Then i recently heard about it again, except it was going to be on FOX and i automatically thought of everything i've said so far. That's not to say i had any real faith in HBO had the show been aired there instead. FOX is just known to make their contestants sign atrocious contracts. And reality shows are known to do very tricky editing and leave their winners with nothing, really.

I don't know. I can't wait for the show to air. I hope it survives Season 1 because i'm genuinely interested in a reality show for the first time ever, but i would never want to be a contestant. :) Good luck to those who do! I've seen some of the films on the site and there are some very talented people there.

I'm with Ben on this one... let me put it this way, Jon. Do you remember any contestants from American Idol? :D And if by some miracle, you do, do you really have any respect for them?

Seriously?

I'm not a fan of their music but there is NO doubt the show helped them immensely. Also, if you like soft pop/country you no doubt own a few of these. I'm more of a Floyd/Stones/Queen kind of guy...

Kelly Clarkson, Carrie Underwood, and Clay Aiken have benefited on a major scale. Not to mention many others...Wikipedia shows the following album sales, just in the U.S.

Kelly Clarkson
(Season 1, Winner)
8.14 Million

2. Carrie Underwood
(Season 4, Winner)
4.78 Million

3. Clay Aiken
(Season 2, Runner-Up)
4.53 Million

4. Ruben Studdard
(Season 2, Winner)
2.41 Million

5. Fantasia Barrino
(Season 3, Winner)
1.95 Million

6. Chris Daughtry
(Season 5, 4th Place)
1.37 Million


Sorry, the numbers don't lie. You don't have to like them, but you have to see that American Idol has brought many of them great success. We're talking 5x and 3x Platinum Album sales for MANY of them.

If "On the Lot" does anywhere close to that... huge success.

Mike

you're right, numbers don't lie and these numbers indicate success... but at what cost? They all have contracts stating, from what i understand (ie. i could be wrong), that they can never be contracted with another music label. They're completely bound to 19 Management, which to me means that FOX is looking for more intelligent ways to serve themselves, not their contestants. What good is commercial success if you can never switch to another label?

Also, i wonder how much of these profits go to the winners. Why would FOX go from a self-serving contract (forcing their contestants to bind themselves to 19 Management) to suddenly saying, "here! take all this money! we don't need it!".

the whole thing just reeks to me... maybe it's just my cynical personality though hehe

you're right, numbers don't lie and these numbers indicate success... but at what cost? They all have contracts stating, from what i understand (ie. i could be wrong), that they can never be contracted with another music label. They're completely bound to 19 Management, which to me means that FOX is looking for more intelligent ways to serve themselves, not their contestants. What good is commercial success if you can never switch to another label?


I'm very curious as to where you get your information from? Kelly Clarkson dumped Fuller (American Idol Creator/Producer) as her agent in 2005. I believe she is with Sony BMG or RCA but don't quote me on that.

I don't think any of the A.I. contracts last longer than a couple of years. Certainly not forever.

So.... she's selling millions or records, she's a household name (yes, most people have "heard" of her) and she is no longer with Fuller/A.I. Manager.

Not bad for a girl who attempted to get a contract before going on the show and was turned down everywhere.

Carrie Underwood is selling country albums at an alarming rate as well...

EDIT: I'm not trying to be rude, just trying to clear up some misinformation.



Mike