On the Lot

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.

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!"

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.

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'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.