User Reviews (13)

Add a Review

  • There is plenty good about this show and a little bad along the way that spoils the fun. Besides being formulaic in the reality show talent contest format ala Idol, there's a decent show with true content each week. While the demographic to which this appeals to is fairly small I believe it'll survive the dearth of summer original programming and do OK for Fox during the bland summer months.

    The directors are varied and each have a particular take, though their own efforts are hampered by frequently mediocre acting. Also at issue is the minimal information that is given about the constraints they work under, so it's hard to judge them objectively.

    Example "What is the theme?" "How long do their movies have to be" "What funds/equipment/time are they alloted"... it is hard for the audience to formulate an opinion when these facts are never discussed.

    The production values are OK but the judges are a mixed bag. No one, at home or on the show, respects Carrie Fisher's opinion, and if I have to hear the old dirty man tell another 'sweetheart' contestant how 'we need more female directors' and that while her movie sucked he 'likes her smile' I'll puke.

    Tune in each week for the surprisingly famous guest judge (who Fox can't ever seem to promote in advance and capitalize on) who is invariably promoting his next big flick and providing the only intelligible commentary and this show should be worth you money on Tuesday nights.
  • shawshank8624 May 2007
    Warning: Spoilers
    i watch about twenty movies a week to get away from television because i see much of it as drivel. i saw previews of this show, and thought that fox must really be stretching for ideas because filming movies is fun, but not for an outside observer. but i left the TV on while doing dishes and found that this actually is a pretty decent show. it is probably the best reality show i've seen because it shows the process of making movies and creates instantly all of the pressures that exist when making movies. i honestly thought that they were ripping off American idol when i saw the judges, but none are as cruelly objective as simon or as sweetly fake and pc as paula. the judging seems fair and constructive, the tasks difficult as the should be. i think that viewers that want movie stardom will benefit from the mistakes of the young directors as will the young directors themselves. it is a good program.
  • I'm not completely blown away with this new Reality Series. However, I do like watching the films these new film makers come out with. Some of these guys really have talent. The films have been entertaining & obviously a lot of work has gone into them. The only thing holding this series back is... #1 the host - she's terrible. She brings nothing to the series & most of the time is flat. She is no Ryan Seacrest. #2 the judges - Carrie Fisher is most of the time... irritating.. She has gotten better toward the end of the series but for God's sake - please come up with better criticism then... I like you I think your talented I just didn't like the film. Then there is Garry Marshall - he definitely has the background but if I hear one more "It was _______ who said" Good grief man, do your kids roll their eyes every time? The guest judges have been the best part. Especially the ones who offer real criticism. Try this type of shot or rework the script because this line didn't work or your filming too close etc. Carri & Garry both need to listen to them more. On the whole I think this works. However, if they do another - get rid of the hostess & replace Garry or Carrie.
  • cowmant1 June 2007
    It's a better show than some of the other more popular reality shows out there. Sure it has its problems but the work produced by the filmmakers is great and its cool to see short films get screened to a large audience for a change. It's too bad audiences don't take too well to creative showcases such as short films. Some of the filmmakers have a lot of talent and deserve some exposure. I hope it lasts the season because if people watched for the films (not for the host or the characters/tension they try to create on reality shows) then it just might pick up some steam. Is it really that hard to have an attention span these days to sit down and watch a collection of fun short films each week....This viewer doesn't think so...Give this one a chance just for the short films.
  • A cynical title but if this show wants to last, that is exactly what it needs to do. I watch a lot of FOX shows and the advertisements for "On-the-Lot" ran so ramped that i just had to check it out. It air right after American Idol (coincidence?) and . . . i saw no difference. Other then "singing" is replaced with "directing" it fits all other Cliché Reality Show stereotype. The Judges (who are predictable in their banter), The contestants trying to kill each other (oh the Drama!) and the host who is pretty but gets annoying after 5 minutes of hearing their voice. What sickens me the most about this show is that they could of dispensed with this Cliché bull plop and for once had a reality show that dared to actually be GOOD!!!! I am losing interest FAST in the show because of the RS crap between Movies. That's all this show should be showing is the short movies because the movies are the only thing people want to see. If you actually like a contestant enough to remember their name and face then you still won't remember them enough to actually care if they get eliminated. This show had a interesting concept but it's execution was horribly thought out. So in short: "CUT-THE-BULL OR CUT-THE SHOW!"
  • This show is actually not that bad. But I did actually expect something more original from Spielberg. On Yahoo!, in the statistics section, they said that this show only had a sixth of the viewers from American Idol and So You Think You Can Dance. Because of Hollywood's reputation, not many people are going to be interested in the reality show behind it because all they can do is pick up the nearest tabloid.

    However, for aspiring filmmakers or producers or editors, etc... this show actually will help a lot after you look past the drama. Things from terminology to techniques can be reaped from this show.

    My prediction is that On The Lot may not have the most viewers, but will have the most loyal.

    Anyways, about the show itself, it's not that different from American Idol or SYTYCD. The only things different I could find is that there is no English judge (though Brett Ratner is pretty much the American version of Simon), there are a lot more challenges in one show, and they skipped the audition process (for good reason, who wants to see hours upon hours of seriously crappy videos?) Watch this if you are a drama addict, or is interesting in seeing into the directing business. But don't see it if you're looking for a unique reality talent search show. (oxymoron...)
  • If you had actually watched past the first episode you would have seen that they eliminated everyone down to 18 contestants immediately.

    But some folks apparently like to post an opinion before watching more than 1 episode.

    I do agree that the reality show "Project Greenlight" was way more interesting to aspiring filmmakers because they could see a lot more of the behind the scenes stuff. And that's really dramatic all by itself.

    I think On the Lot suffers from not enough "reality". Behind the scenes film-making is tough stuff, and I'd like to have seen more of that along with the finished shorts.

    However, "On the Lot" is not a bad show. Garry Marshall is an oddball that throws in all kinds of jokes and then delivers a one line synopsis of why a particular film doesn't work. Sure he's goofy...but if you pay attention to those quick one line observations, you'll see why the man has made so many hits over the years.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Whether one enjoys American Idol or not, it is a high energy, high velocity, high volume exercise with ratings credentials to match. With 30+ million viewers in its wake, it is an incredible springboard for any new programming event that the Fox Network chooses to showcase. On Tuesday evening, all of the media and promotional planets were aligned to introduce On the Lot, the new reality show purported to identify the Next Big Hollywood Director through reality show attrition.

    I'm not a big fan of these reality adventures. I watched the original Survivor with interest. But every similar effort in its wake (and there have been plenty) has seemed to walk the same path, in the same stale footprints. Now, use of the term "voted off" stimulates some frantic channel surfing to separate myself from THAT reality.

    Still, the promo spots for On the Lot seemed intriguing. One doesn't often see flying saucers over the East River. Perfect timing! We're all currently immersed in an avalanche of "mini-movies" from YouTube and MySpace, and dozens of other mega-hit web sites. Our obsession with all things video has revealed some genuine, if in-the-raw talent. This viewer mind-set and a forum such as OTL should be fertile ground, an opportunity for would-be directors to excel and viewers to enjoy their challenges. Plus, the Spielberg/Amblin name on the marquee usually suggests a quality product.

    Unfortunately, an hour of YouTube's best would have been sensational compared to this lot. Because, in reality, On the Lot should have been called On the Feed Lot. It smelled terrible! Take all of the worst attributes of Survivor, American Idol, and The Apprentice, mix in Inside the Actor's Studio and Dog Eat Dog and you'll have the ingredients for this misdirected melange that managed to be, at once, too cerebral, too adolescent, too devoid of any compelling video or film to please anyone.

    With all of opening clichés out of the way (the only reality was bits and pieces of the Universal Studio Tour) we settled down to watch a series of pitch presentations by increasingly inept wannabes. Shades of the American Idol auditions but (unless you have a sadistic streak) with no entertainment value at all.

    Three judges, of course, with one female but lacking the good, the bad, and the ugly that sparks the process when AI's no talent shills are sent packing. I must say, Marshall, and Ratner are talented directors and Fisher is a fine author and a pretty good actor, though she will always be Princess Leia to Star Wars fans. The people who designed my car did a fine job too but that doesn't mean I want to see them on TV telling neophytes in the auto business where to install the fuel injectors.

    After a quick ejection of 14 for whom Andy's 15 minutes of fame fled too quickly, the remaining candidates arranged themselves in groups of three and were given their first movie assignments with actual cameras and actors. The final quarter hour of the show vacillated between Survivor beach scene angst, midnight hour confrontations ala Apprentice, and kindergarten playgrounds on no-nap afternoons. After a few minutes of personality conflicts, glowering, and shouts of "You're blocking my shot!" only white knuckles kept me from abandoning this ship of fools.

    How can people who have created such stunning successes miss the mark so badly? I suspect that by the half hour break, at least 80 percent of those AI viewers were gone and, by the end, maybe 10 percent had lingered. Worse news: most will never be back. One magnificent opportunity, wasted.

    For those of us with film and television experience, curiosity couldn't keep us away. For everyone else, the question had to be the same—"Where's the entertainment?!!"
  • Warning: Spoilers
    SPOILERS

    Yes, there has only been one episode so far and I am already commenting on this but I really enjoyed the pilot of this series. This was definitely my most anticipated new show all year. I finally watched it and it lived up to my expectations. I have always wanted to be a filmmaker and this show gives you some helpful tips. Also, Steven Spielberg produced this! Steven Spielberg! The director of Raiders of the Lost Ark and Schindler's List. Yes, him. This show, in my opinion, is better than American Idol, America'a Got Talent, Dancning With the Stars, and So You Think You Can Dance. All of those. That is a pretty big compliment.

    On to the show. Here is the basis. Like I mentioned, there has only been one episode. Out of 12,000 people, 50 of them are sent to Los Angelos to become the next great filmmaker in this competition. They have to do everything a good director does to win the $1,000,000 movie deal for Dreamworks. In the first episode, they had to pitch a story idea to three judges. Carrie Fisher, Brett Ratner, and Garry Marshall. Some pitches were good, most sucked. Fourteen people were eliminated. The next challenge? They have to work together in pairs of three to make a 2-minute short in 24 hours. The first episode was continued, but here is the real question, who will become the next great filmmaker? Later on, people will have to vote for their favorite director.

    Overall, this is a great reality elimination show. The idea is great, and I love hearing some of the zany or brilliant ideas of these amateur filmmakers. I do hope that there will be much more years to come for On the Lot. I enjoyed the first episode a lot, and I hope I enjoy the rest of the Season's shows. Anyway, this is a really good reality competition show, and I like this much more than half of the reality competition shows out there.

    9/10

    Recommended Shows: American Idol.
  • drbutchermd25 May 2007
    If you want to see a good find a director through reality TV television show, skip this one all together and watch Project Greenlight. Or maybe even paint drying would be more interesting. They start out with fifty candidates vying for a spot directing a movie with a million dollar budget. They should have broken it down to twenty candidates before the show went on the air. There is just way too many people to keep track of. You don't care when people are sent home because you really don't know anything about them. Also Steven Spielberg produces but nowhere to be seen. They also dug up Carrie Fisher and Gary Marshall from the depths of Hollywood. Bret Ratner is also there pretending to be some kind of authority. If they were gonna make a not very good cop-buddy with one hundred crappy sequels than I say call Bret. Avoid at all costs!!
  • I love my movies. I come out of the cinema with lots of opinions and theories (some good - some bad) and my friends tell me to shut up already.

    Here we have a bunch of aspiring producers (some good - some bad) having their short films completely taken apart by well known directors each week.

    What more can I ask for? Can wait each week to see what new ideas there are. Even the bad ones aren't that bad because they end in 2 minutes.

    I pity those that are around me when I'm watching this - like my friends and family say "shut up already and watch the show!"
  • It's a bit strange that this show was made considering the most fundamental problem with the premise should have been quite obvious to anyone with more than an afternoon in the film production business:

    Film production is an extraordinarily slow boring process to many/most of those on the set. Watching a set dressed or reset can literally mean watching paint dry. There might easily be just a few minutes of actual takes in an entire day.

    Sure, the DIRECTOR is generally very busy and very rarely never bored.

    Post production can be even far more boring. Watching someone editing film is essentially watching someone using a computer. I've actually done both directing and editing at an amateur level (even entering this contest) and while I love editing and can spend countless hours trimming single frames and making subtle cuts, it's not something you want to watch. I spent well over five hundred hours editing the 30 minute film I submitted to the show.

    The show apparently figured this out quickly and turned it into another reality squabble fest. That was so trite by the time this was made that it actually made it even exponentially more boring.

    The show also had incredibly sophomoric production issues, even extending to poor audio mixing with the host in stage, a VERY well known science by this point.

    I suppose with the incredible success of shows like American Idol, it seemed worth the risk of trying this, because you never really know when some strange premise becomes an astonishing success, and reality shows like this are quite inexpensive to create.
  • I vehemently abhor reality TV, but was lured into "On the Lot" with the promise of seeing filmmakers at work. What I was treated to, however, was a slow-motion trainwreck that seemed to get worse with each passing episode... so of course, I found myself captivated by it! In the first episode, there was clearly potential in the show as filmmakers paired up and were forced to work together on a short film. However, I don't think the short they were working on was ever aired...

    The following week, "On the Lot" became a horrendous knock-off of "American Idol," and seemed to be retooled on an episode-to-episode basis. The new format was that filmmakers would make a short film each week (it was later leaked that the shorts were made before the show debuted), and get voted off by viewers. Although it seemed like the focus was supposed to be on the films they made, the show followed the standard reality TV format of making the contestants out to be heroes (visionary Adam Stein, family man Will Bigham, underdog Jason Epperson) and villains (tempermental Marty Martin) -- anyone who didn't get lumped into such a category stood no chance. Initial host Chelsea Handler was instantly replaced with charmless, clueless eye candy Adriana Costa, who emceed the show with all of the wit and charisma of an uncooked potato. Judge Carrie Fisher was there simply to be crazy, judge Gary Marshall came off like a sexist buffoon, and each week a different Hollywood director would sit in as guest judge -- most were obviously VERY embarrassed to be there. When ratings plummeted, the show was knocked down from two episodes a week to one, meaning viewers had to wait a full week to see who was voted off (though it was clear almost from the start who the three finalists would be).

    What's sad is there was obviously talent involved, and the shorts themselves were generally entertaining (I'd love to see all the shorts collected and released on DVD). The problem was that everything about the show EXCEPT the shorts was ill-conceived. And the biggest travesty is that most of the directors haven't done anything notable since the show left the air -- finalist Adam Stein, in particular, routinely turned out creative and entertaining films, yet he has no further IMDb credits.

    All in all, the show's most notable for being an unsightly pimple on the face of not only Hollywood, but also reality TV, which is a shame, 'cause it could've been so much more.