(S01E02) I find myself questioning two things about On The Lot and neither is really a negative thing about the show, which I find myself enjoying.
Foremost, what's with the bizarre airing schedule? Like I said last week, Fox really should have capitalized on the huge American Idol lead in by airing a two hour episode that really illustrated what this show is all about.
These first few episodes really seem to be focusing on the "personalities" and the conflicts they appear to be having. Specifically, the beef between Marty and Jeff and the issues Hanna and Jessica have with Kenny.
If there was ever an opportunity to break the inner quarreling so prevalent (and popular) in reality TV, this show could have been the one that did it simply by focusing on the movies.
Secondly, I really wish we could see more of the films.
Of the 12 shorts that could have been viewed, we were only able to see four of them in full. I would have loved to see all 12 and considering they were only 2 1/2 minutes long, it could have been done.
Sure, you can go to the website to view them, but how many casual TV watchers who catch the show are going to go through the trouble?
Of course, there was a bit of a time crunch since it was only 35 minutes long, which brings us back to issue one again. Why didn't they just dedicate a full hour to this episode?
I realize the show will eventually be all about the movies once America gets to start voting on the films. It just seems like the show should be focusing on them more intently from the get go.
Last week's episode ended with the 36 remaining directors placed in groups of three to film a 2 1/2 minute short that would determine if they remained in the competition. The logline of the film was appropriately enough "out of time" since they are all in a bit of a time crunch to produce a quality piece of work.
Time crunch or not, I was absolutely blown away by Zach, Sam, and Adam's film with the impressive special effects. All I could say was wow - and by the "holy crap" expressions on the faces of the other directors in the audience, they were impressed and a little intimidated by his skills.
They showed Zach's "shooting a UFO with a rocket" clip several times in the last two episodes, and I was floored every time I saw it. It's insane how professional the shot looks and he showed the same flair in the short that showcased all the objects freezing in midair.
As movies like Armageddon and Pearl Harbor show, it takes much more than special effects to make a good movie, but they certainly help in winning over an audience. I can't wait to see how far his talents take him.
On a side note, I'm surprised that when the directors use esoteric terms like the "boom pole", the producers expect the audience to understand exactly what they're talking about. There really should be a little "pop-up video" like definition that appears to let us laymen understand what all the terms mean.
A little nit picky on my part I know, but it's a suggestion I'm sure others would appreciate as well.
All in all, I enjoyed the special effects film and the laundromat film. I was slightly less impressed with the other two films that were shown. They weren't bad, but they definitely lacked the appeal of the first two. At some point before Monday, I intend to see what the other eight films that weren't shown were like.
Until then, I'll be eager to see what the 25 remaining amateur filmmakers have up their sleeves. If this week was any indication, we should be in for a pretty amazing ride the rest of the season.
The TV Squad Podcast: Vik Sahay of Chuck, Oprah talk, brutal timeslots, and more!
TV Squad Ten: Top Ten ESPN shows from worst to first
Andy Richter: The TV Squad Interview
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
5-25-2007 @ 2:44AM
BigTed said...
I think "On the Lot" is going to be canceled pretty soon. The ratings are bad, the reviews have been largely negative, and the contestants are either unpleasant or complete nonentities.
I enjoyed watching the short films -- they turned out to be the most entertaining part of the show. But I used my fast-forward to skim through the rest in about five minutes. I didn't really care who was cut and who wasn't, and I doubt anyone else did, either.
I don't know whether it's the concept or the execution, but something about this show just doesn't work. As Spielberg productions go, it's a lot more "AI" than "ET."
Reply
5-25-2007 @ 2:47AM
BigTed said...
On second thought, I take it back about the show being canceled. We're getting into the summertime, and the networks don't have much to show us other than reality shows and stuff that couldn't cut it during the real TV season. So it's more likely to limp along till the end, but with very low ratings.
Reply
5-25-2007 @ 10:31AM
Chester said...
On the Lot will be the lead in for Hell's Kitchen June 04.
CBS will have Creature Comforts (claymation) and a repeat of Old Christine up against On the Lot. ABC will have repeats of Wife Swap. On the Lot is in trouble.
Reply
5-25-2007 @ 12:25PM
Annie said...
FOX couldn't have aired a 2 hour premiere with an American Idol lead-in. They don't have programming at 10 pm.
Which baffles me, incidentally. You would think that after being on the air for so many years now, they'd start expanding into the 10:00 hour.
Reply
5-25-2007 @ 4:07PM
not blond said...
all the films were ho-hum. The "Time Out" film used an effect - ohhhh. We've never seen an effect before? Big deal. story - ok but so what? None of the films showed the kind of talent that deserves a total flip-out WOW. It really is a case of diminished expectations.
Reply
5-26-2007 @ 11:31PM
Debbie said...
I know the first few episodes were very disjointed
Its a hard concept to get across initiallt
But I think once we get down to vote a contestant off category, it will prove to be exciting and will give people sa chance to watch the next major filmaker discovery something that project greeenlight tried
but did not work
lets stick with it until the journey is really out
Reply
5-29-2007 @ 12:37AM
Noir said...
For some reason, On The Lot cut off from being recorded on my DVR. Does anyone know where I can find a stream? Otherwise, I'm afraid I won't be able to catch up with this show and will be forced to skip it for the rest of the season. I watched the first hour, then my DVR just crashed. Subsequent attempts to record it on other channels were a failure.
When will Fox realize they need to properly seed a show to gain viewers in the beginning? This should have had a second showing on a Sunday night or something.
Reply
5-29-2007 @ 1:40AM
amber said...
I have to say, I'm terribly disappointed in Garry Marshall and the whole load of crap about how all the films by women have to show "a woman's perspective." Do all the films by men have the responsibility to represent men?
And it's very disrespectful to mispronounce someone's name, or tell them they need a new one, just because you're too famous to bother learning how to pronounce it.
I love watching the films, though, and wish it was about the films and not so much about the interpersonal stuff.
Reply
5-29-2007 @ 5:25PM
Amy said...
I'm enjoying the series, especially now that we're getting to see all of the directors' films. I'm just very confused as to why they didn't air the episode in which they pared it down to 18. Thursday the 24th, the show ended with clips from what I assumed was the next episode. They had to shoot a one-page scene in an hour, and someone didn't follow the script, the Italian bird had no shots completed, etc. Next show aired was the 18 finalists and we never saw those six or seven others being eliminated. Did I miss something??
Reply
5-29-2007 @ 8:49PM
Rob said...
I was looking forward to this series but right from the first episode I found it's been really poor. The first episode had 50 contestants? Why? You hardly met any of them, you hardly saw any of their work, so why on earth would you care that they get rid of 18?
I also find the judges are terrible, even for the bad films they're bending over backwards trying to be nice, so what is the point of their judging? I find Carrie Fisher's comments particulalry inane.
I actually find the show spends way too much time screening videos and hardly any time getting to know the filmakers, seeing them in action, watching the group dynamics. There are tens of thousands of short videos on the internet, I don't know why I'd be watching the few they're showing here, they're just not that good.
I have no idea why Spielberg would put his name to this. If he actually had anything to do with the production I'd suggest he stick to making films.
Reply
5-29-2007 @ 11:23PM
marco said...
It’s good to see Jason Epperson's "Getta Rhoom" getting lots of votes. You could probably ding him for fuzzy direction at most.You know, "let's try that again, but this time with less Disabled vibe"
I think the judges were a bit melodramatic.
Reply
5-30-2007 @ 4:53PM
Shane said...
This is a terrible show. How can a show that is built on creativity be so "copy cat". The host almost repeats Seacrest Word for Word when reading the results and the intensity factor is just no there. And how many shows are going to have a 2 men and 1 woman judging panel?! Can't the creators be MORE CREATIVE, especially for a show that is all about a Directors creativity basically?
Reply
6-01-2007 @ 12:42PM
msjudge said...
We were really excited about this show, liked the first episode, then, ugh. The host is unwatchable. She lacks any of the charm of Seacrest. Not sure what's worse, her intense, almost screaming delivery of all the endless, scripted chatter, or her bizarre hand gestures. Whoever it is in Hollywood who started all this manual choreography ought to be run out of town on a rail. Think it began with obnoxious Pat O'Brien and has now infected all of them on television. OTL's host has a different mannerism, but it's also the worst: she creates a diamond-shaped hole with her hands, then clasps them closed and shoves them at you. It goes on and on and on. I like the judges a lot, but Carrie Fisher is starting to behave much more weirdly than Paula Abdul. What's her newly affected nervousness and stammering and kvetching and hand-wringing all about, for godssake? And the show is sooo padded. I don't even WANT to see these mostly awful movies over and over and over again. With Hollywood as the background and movies the subject matter, the mind reels at all the possibilities available to make the show terrific. Instead, ugh, ugh, ugh. Finally, the show is So Fox, as in America-Only. I thought it was great the show featured filmmakers from around the world, and some of them were exceptionally talented. But of course they don't have the same-state vote to get them the tallies they need to stay on. So Americans vote for their home boys or girls and we all say bye-bye to the scary foreigners who don't wear backwards baseball caps or make movies about peeing on buses. One last ugh. That makes this a 5-ugh show.
Reply
6-04-2007 @ 1:44PM
Holden said...
I really looked forward to this show - but was sooooo disappointed at the first 2 episodes. I like Carrie Fisher and Gary Marshall, but come on - that hostess? Whose girl friend is she anyway? She seems very, very nervous. She couldn't even pronounce Carrie's last name. She's dressed inappropriately and doesn't seem to know a thing about film. And, why in the world did that video about the retarded man win? Was no one offended by that one but me? This show is not being shown on Fox at 8 tonight (at least not here). Is it being cancelled? Did Carrie Fisher just throw up her hands and run? She should.
Reply
6-05-2007 @ 1:08PM
Grace Dimaranan said...
Im really disappointed on the How the show ON THE LOT turned out. Host is boring & repetitive, She seemed to shout her words, the stage is bare & boring. Its so much patterned to american idol style... its just not working for this one! They should have continued showing of film clips from the contestant & not so much talk! As Im typing this I was waiting for the weeks new episode... but it showed a replay of last week!( Im in Asia ) I think this show is not going to make it... I hope they realize this and do some major overhaul on the show.
Reply
6-06-2007 @ 8:08PM
Matt said...
I think Chelsea Handler was the host (she is hilarious, Google her YouTube clips) in the pilot- when it was about the film-makers and their conflicts on set. Now the focus is on the judges, their opinions, and that TERRIBLE host. She is so awkward. She sounds like she's just had a coughing fit and nobody will give her water. Her "excitement" comes across as "awkward."
Before I leave you - one more thing... Carrie Fisher is so bizarre. In the episode with Michael Bay, she summarized the plot lines and said "good luck." How is that a comment? Then Michael Bay would bash them and the other judge...Gary- would say something comical and "old-man-ish" - like, "we need more women in film." Thanks buddy, real moving.
Reply