Started 10 minutes ago EDT...

gonna be a great series...tough stuff...they started with the one thing most indie filmmakers never have to do...Pitch their film...to Hollywood bigwigs no less.

Just got done watching it myself.. It must say I was proud to see that were was at least a handful of girls.

The group stuff though, those people just clash.. They didn't show any groups that were actually getting along.. Three people with three different ideas, and no experience working with each other.. just sounds a bit ify.

But the show looks like it's going to be interesting.

So everyones opinions... What do you think this show is going to do for filmmakers? Do you think it will help filmmakers gain more recognition entirely? Or contrary?

On The Lot will become the american idol of the motion picture world....

I just got done watching it. I must say it was pretty cool to watch but also kinda frustrating. These filmmakers that were chosen seem to be sort of low-grade and unprofessional, and yet they are representing the world of independent film. The conflict within the teams show that all of them are selfish and want only to get their own vision across. 3 locations, 3 directors; a director of all people should understand what a director's job is and where he stands and how it is his job to tell you what to do and lastly that his decision overshadows yours.

Obviously, if these teams don't come to a quick realization than ultimately they will fall hard.

Mostly, though, I want to see these guys' films! Not the ones they have to shoot, but the ones that got them on the show. I want one director to root for, and hopefully its one that appreciates the film medium like I do.

I quote Stanley:
"Most creative directors do not find the balance between being famous and creating art."

As long as you tell a story you enjoy telling, and create art for others and not yourself, all the rest comes later.

I'm looking forward to this show, good night DVinfo!

-Chris

Cole, but Indies do need to pitch it. You have to pitch and sell it to distribution. And if you get moving forward, you then have to pitch your next project if your last was successful if you want better distribution. I watched carefully as I have a project coming up to pitch to distributors.

I didn't get the impression (on the show - haven't looked at them on the website yet) that any of these folks were the types of filmmakers who do projects large enough to distribute...more smaller festival/competition types of filmmakers. I'm probably wrong and making inaccurate assumptions.

I've seen a shift in the last couple of years from talking heads shorts to larger production value shorts (more and better locations + more acting, less talking)...at least in the things I'm watching. I think the lower end indies ( I make a distinction between guerilla, indies and independants based mostly on budget/resource/permission acquisition - you're allowed to disagree with me, I often go too far ;) ) tend to self distribute, so haven't generally had to convince anyone other than themselves the merits of their pieces. I've tried to get more locations into my pieces (although they're still painfully talking heads pieces - I'm working on it), so I've done quite a bit of pitching. I've worked with actors who are not in my immediate group of acquaintances. I have to pitch to them too.

I know lots of indie filmmakers though who haven't moved past making movies with their immediate friends. The quality improves as they get more practice (as it would have to) but they never move out of their comfort circle and their livingrooms/garages to get more variety in their locations and talent pools.

I've also experienced the conflict caused by putting 2 "one man show" directors together on one set to make a project. It doesn't generally get worked through the first shoot. Like everything else, it's learning from mistakes and being an adult about admitting them and taking criticism.

Again, I know nothing of these directorial hopefuls, but my own experience in the indie film community has shown these commonalities in the mindset of the directors who are working toward moving up the ladder. I did my "Guerilla" filmmaker (videomakers for those of you who are sensitive to that sort of thing) work in high school and then later on my first couple of shorts. I decided to make the move to "Indie" filmmaker, so started getting permission to shoot places and getting actors that I hadn't met before the production, writing scripts and Pitching projects to all of these assets. Pitching the project was nerve wracking on my first one too. I've slowly figured it out and am much more comfortable in saying concise summaries that make sense instead of babbling about every little thing that pops into my head about the project ( like I am now :) ).

I like the show...it's going to challenge the filmmakers to move into the fiscal responsibility of the "Independant" filmmaker, then that will teach them also the massively collaborative mindset of the "Studio" filmmaker.

These last two also rely on others to distribute your film, so treating it as a business becomes part of the preproduction planning, with distribution and audience saturation as a goal to maximize profit. As we all know, Filmmakers deal with much larger budgets that HAVE to show not only fast ROI, but sizeable profits or they won't be able to continue being filmmakers without self-funding their next projects.

And break a lead on your distro dealings George!

<diatribe off>

On The Lot will become the american idol of the motion picture world....The two shows have a lot in common. The selection process itself for instance... the contestants are chosen not just for their skills and talent, but also because certain personalities make for good television. Just like American Idol, the producers of On The Lot will intentionally bypass some of the most promising auditions -- those which are never seen by the viewing audience -- in favor of others whose who are guaranteed to mix it up onscreen with others like oil and water.

It's all about what makes "good television" by their standards... think Survivor, The Apprentice, American Idol... yes there's plenty of talent on Idol but "good television" always takes precedence; that's why there was a Sanjaya on Idol this season.

I watched John Travolta's masterpiece Battlefield Earth instead.

This show will do nothing but good things for indie filmmakers. Anything that encourages wanna-bes to stop talking and start doing is a great thing.

I loved the show, my frustration was not submitting.

I wanted to post to respond to the comments about how none of the successful groups were shown... they have to

#1) make good tv as has been stated already, but also...

#2) they need to show aspiring filmmakers what not to do first, because chances are the highest majority of watchers would make the wrong moves before the right ones.

I love the show too, but the reality of the situation with "On The Lot" is that it's not about good things for indie filmmakers, but rather it's about casting a reality show on TV. Casting for entertainment value.

No way would I want to be on *any* reality show on TV. I'd rather get behind a camera than in front of it... and if I'm in front of it, the last thing I want to act like, is myself. I'd much rather prefer to do a Brando impersonation.

"It was you, Charlie... I coulda had class..."

Or Alex, from Clockwork:

"Me glazzies! Aagghh!!"

I think Carrie Fisher (Princess Leia) was hilarious with her matter of fact responses. She once said in an interview that everytime she looks in a mirror she has to give George Lucas a buck because he owns the rights to her likeness. There's one thing about this show and typical pitch sessions though. I think the stress level was obviously much more because this was done with several cameras pointed at the contestants not to mention a jib swinging around the whole time. You can see all kinds of content like the introduction bios of the judges, etc. on their website. Even though the show is about being chosen as director, I don't think it will be as popular as American Idol because it doesn't appeal to the masses like acting and singing stars do but more with the crew side of the industry. How many people have pictures of directors on their wall? It's definitely about time for us though!

www.thelot.com

I watched John Travolta's masterpiece Battlefield Earth instead.
You are just pouting because they weren't smart enough to include you ;)

It's all about what makes "good television" by their standards... think Survivor, The Apprentice, American Idol... yes there's plenty of talent on Idol but "good television" always takes precedence; that's why there was a Sanjaya on Idol this season.
I agree, but as long as there is some talent on the show... I'll be happy.

We'll find out soon enough. I just hope we get to see more of what they film at some point. Then we'll see if any of these people have some real talent. Too early to tell at this point.

Entertaining show though, and that's what it's all about.

Mike

I like the show...was a little bit frustrating to sit and watch..instead of direct and participate! However, it was really cool to see a friend of mine on there!!! I knew she made it...but it was even more exciting to see her on the show!

It does seem like they picked certain people to be on the show just to create "drama"...and they probably already know who is going to win just because of the selections they have already made. but still...it will be fun to watch!

....boy am i jealous...

Jeremiah, which one is your friend?

I checked out the website thelot.com hoping they might have a section for the shorts they submitted to get on the show. I couldn't find anything :(

Next show it tomorrow !

Once they get to the Top 12 or whatever, their submissions will probably go online.

I missed OTL tonight. I found that you can view episodes on their site but it requires you to download and install their proprietary player. Does anyone know what kind of player it is?

I like this show! I thought it turned out pretty well. I have to say, tho, I think I could have maybe done better then some of the people that got *on* there..

I missed the first episode, but I think I am pretty much caught up now..

I am cheering for Adam, Zach, and I can't remember the other persons name that I liked....

"How many people have pictures of directors on their wall?"

I would! But am strange that way.... I want a picture of M. Night Shyamalan. Strange, maybe, but I still want it. :D

Haha, I could see you doing that Chris... Pretty funny.

~Gabriel

Being from Vancouver, I'm obviously rooting for Zach Lipovsky. Danger Zone was funny and innovative in the way he did his effects.

OK, so I watched last night's episode .. the "voting results" show ... and that is it for me. Very disappointed with this show. Started out as an interesting douc-style look at the directors making their videos, and has totally de-evolved into American Idol

And last night ... an entire hour just to find out who lost????? With recaps of videos we already saw???? Please tell me that this is not the format ... Monday nite we view the videos, hear the judge's inane comments (please don't let Carrie Fisher say "you're a great film maker" one more time) .... then Tue night waste an hour just to find out whose going home .. with all the phony attempts at building suspense ... that just did not work

Only good moment: When "Getta Room" place in the top three, turning those politically correct judges on their heads. Carrie Fisher proclaiming "I like it now!" Oh c'mon .. grow a set. If you didn't like it, stick to your convictions. Of course, what role do these "judges" now play ... when voting has gone public

I much preferred a series I caught on the Independent Film Channel following a group of NYU film students trying to make their final film. Now, there was some suspense

For some reason, I found the host very annoying (not really sure yet why). And I also didn't think it was necessary for the host to repeat all the judges comments plus the many commercial breaks. It was too long.

I find Fisher's comment about her own daughter abit disturbing.

I think the voting episodes were poorly done in general. I have a hard time thinking of one thing that was actually done well. The show's directing, acting, sound and even the video, were all kinda just phoned in. The actual directors competing should have been able to put together the show, that would make it at least a little more entertaining.

OK, so I watched last night's episode .. the "voting results" show ... and that is it for me. Very disappointed with this show. Started out as an interesting douc-style look at the directors making their videos, and has totally de-evolved into American Idol

um...it started out as american idol. And since it's following the structure and everything, they really need to follow the selection of judging personalities to make this show a success. Wishy Washy critique, not only won't help the contestants improve, it'll make their films worse as time goes on.

I got sucked into Idol this last season (tried to avoid, didn't work). I really appreciate what they do now. Honest (even brutal) critique is what the performers would get in a closed door audition process. They don't get that once the camera is turned on and the possibility of people misconstruing honest critique as abuse.

They need an industry outsider that will be brutally honest and talk about particular parts of what they didn't like (maybe a film critic)...or me! I volunteer to be Simon Cowell for this show.

"it started out as american idol"

I know what you're saying, but the very first episode did not have the live audience, phone to vote format. I had no idea what the show was so I didn't realize it was gonna go there

I totally agree with your point about judging ... man, the real world is harsh. Everytime I put in a bid on a new job and submit my reel I am being judged and judge hard. As it should be. People are spending money

I don't know why they have judges at all at this point; I mean, why are they there? Its a popularity contest, how else do you explain the skater boy not being eliminated? All his buddies called in.

If you are going to have "judges" who have no real say in anything I agree with you .. make em objective and tough so at least the participants have an idea of how their "films" would really stack up in the real world.

"it started out as american idol"

I know what you're saying, but the very first episode did not have the live audience, phone to vote format. I had no idea what the show was so I didn't realize it was gonna go there

American Idol starts out with the audition rounds...we just see highlights/lowlights of those. After that, the judges don't have any say other than to advise the viewers on what they are seeing/should be looking for. Their critique needs to be more critical than a casual observer of the piece.

I personally liked the complicated concept that Zach went with, but the robot arms in his greenscreened segment was output using the wrong lens choice, it didn't match the footage he was comping it into. Looked like the lens was too wide.

The 911 call used tenebrism throughout the entire piece to show the isolation of the woman, it was a nice artistic choice.

The Shot composition of the stapler guy was great throughout and had great warm, cinematic color. It was a fantastic piece and well thought out, speaking to age old themes of adapting to new technology...with some subtle irony thrown in for flavor...

blah....blah...blah, all that arthouse babble...but it's necessary to direct the public's eye to the successes and failures "technically" of these contestants pieces and processes...they've got a million dollars on the line, and to let the voting public vote without educating them to an alien process is a bit naive of them. With singing, anyone can just start doing that...with varying success, but filmmaking is something much more complex...I do both...and singing is much easier. At the end of the competition, the winning director will probably get to pick a script and do nothing other than direct the piece...the piece of the initial competition that dealt with just that part ended up on the Cutting Room Floor...in the website Outtakes. Much more informative about the end result.

Only good moment: When "Getta Room" place in the top three, turning those politically correct judges on their heads. Carrie Fisher proclaiming "I like it now!" Oh c'mon .. grow a set. If you didn't like it, stick to your convictions. Of course, what role do these "judges" now play ... when voting has gone public




I'm not the most politically correct person in the world but "Get a Rhoom" did make me feel uncomfortable. I did laugh but it was the kind of laugh I felt I should not laugh at. I was glad to see he didn't get the boot because he obviously has alot of talent and I'd like to see more of his stuff. I think Carrie was making a joke when she said I like it now.

anyway I thought it was funny but uncomfortably funny.

Cheers
Kelly

"Getta Rhoom", or however it was spelled, was just kinda blah. not all that great, but not terrible. But that "Wacky Cab" one was just awful, and that guy is still on. His story, if you can call it that, was just ripped from "Crazy Taxi", the video game. And it looked worse than what 12 year olds are putting together on youtube with an old hi8 video camera. I'm surprised at the people who didn't make it, cause they may not be the best at writing their scripts, but this is a show about being a director, not a screenwriter.

I find Fisher's comment about her own daughter abit disturbing.
What did she say about her daughter?

What did she say about her daughter?

"Would you marry my daughter?" I believe those were the words... She said them pointed to Zach.

I agree Sean. That Taxi one was lame. It was a rip off of the game for sure.. I forgot all about that one..

Yes, there is some really talented people on youtube that I think could wipe out a few of these people on OTL. I don't mean to be full of my self when I say this, but I think I could better then a few of them that got on. And I know, that there is people here on DVinfo better, thats a fact. But once again, its a reality TV show.. Skill does not matter, its about looks, character, personality, and so forth. :(

Its so sad that no one can make a real tv show about film making...

~Gabriel

"Would you marry my daughter?" I believe those were the words... She said them pointed to Zach.

~Gabriel


I'm with you on this. I too was deeply disturbed and appalled by the comment. I will not be tuning into this show again.

i think it's important to remember that while these contestants are fighting tooth and nail to stay on the show, other directors are submitting their work to festivals that matter and making a difference, both for themselves and the industry. Directors are still breaking in, far, far away from On The Lot.

This show is in no way revolutionary for filmmakers anywhere. It's just television. On FOX of all places.

Very good points Angie.


On FOX of all places.

Haha, yeah, no kidding. Anything to make more money! Put some famous peoples name on something and make the dough! Sounds like fox to me..

~Gabriel

American Idols who Think They Can Dance (with Stars) on the Lot to show Amercia they Have Talent

I smell a winner

America's Next Top Mime! It'll happen!

American Idols who Think They Can Dance (with Stars) on the Lot to show Amercia they Have Talent

I smell a winner

Hahahaha, yes! That is totally awesome! I just got this crazy idea that I am going to see about making...

I wonder if people would like a reality TV show that is real...
~Gabriel

I haven't watched the show at all, but I'm starting to think I will spare myself the trouble.....

Since people are mentioning the whole reality show thing, when I started seeing ads for reality shows based on hair dressing, cooking, clothing design, gym workouts I began to wonder.

Is it just there's a couple of tv execs driving around LA, wondering what random activity can we cheaply make a show out of? Shall we have 'The Guys Who Use Leaf Blowers' - the competition! The drama! Tonite on Blow Me!

It also strikes me the word 'Reality Show' is getting a little over used. 'Survivor' seemed like basically a game show - there's a competition and a prize at the end. 'Work Out' and 'Blowout' seemed like documentaries - you film people in actual life situations (well, maybe very contrived ones).

I endeth my rant here, and the leave the soapbox - sorry if I went too far off the thread topic.

I agree, I think the term 'reality show' is being stretched. Yet for some reason, I still watch some of them... I don't really know why that is... too much spare time I guess.

There was seriously shows called workout and blowout? Wow, where have I been...

~Gabriel

This whole "reality show" thing is like "talk radio". Its done because its cheap. Its down because we now have like, 99 million channels and not enough content. Its done because Surviovor was brief phenom and, being that Imagination and Creativity apparantly got together and eloped to parts unknown, if worked once producers will blugeon it into the ground. How many sequels are coming to the big screen this summer??? Like, there is a fourth Die Hard movie ... was anybody really crying for a fourth Die Hard. Don't even get me started on re-makes

The buzzword "reality show" is such a misnomer. I enjoy programs like Investigative Reports and the First 48 ... aren't those "reality shows"?? Not to mention documentaries ... sure, all of them look at "truth" through some kind of editorial filter, but that is the nature of expression

For me, On the Lot would work better if they focussed more on the actual movie making process. The reason this show exists is because the relative ease and inexpense of modern video gear means more people can become "film makers" ... so why not let us have a look on its done?

There was a series (shown here in Canada on IFC) that focussed on three NYU film students struggling to make their final student films. It wasn't a game show (like On the Lot Is) it was just a little record of their journey ... I guess their prize was their diploma. I got four of em. Stick to the lottery.

That's why I liked Project Greenlight better. It was a contest to get on the show, but the show itself was more documentary. Even if the films weren't that good. That was usually cause they picked the least obvious person. Plus, they should have avoided stars for their movies and used no names.

Well, it's on Monday then Tuesday, no wait, Monday.... well, maybe Tuesday? I finally gave up. This show is not at all what I thought it was going to be. I agree that there should be alot more of showing the process of making movies. I'm done with it too, at least until the end when they will hopefully show more production.

If you want to watch something on Fox during the week, So You Think You Can Dance is a much, much better show.