I have to say that I am quite confused about the aim of this show. And why on earth only have it on for 45 minutes yesterday?

I think the story is super important, but this show is about filmmaking, but there seems to me to be very little emphasis on that.

I'm also getting tired of the judges. Just because certain subjects don't appeal to them, they just seem to say I didn't care for the film. Shouldn't they as judges focus a little more on the technical aspects of the films and not just whether or not they liked the subject matter.

Rubix,

Are you Chris H. by any chance?

Quoted from Death Monkey Does Michael Bay even remember what it was like making movies without Industrial Light & Magic and a 200-million dollar budget?

No.

So I've been reading the comments in this thread and most of them are leaning towards the negative side. I've been very busy lately so I've missed the last couple episodes, which, I gather, is a good thing. What I've seen hasn't particularly interested me anyway and the show moves so fast, there's not enough time to really see what's going on. Nevertheless, this thread has persuaded me not to try and get back into the show. So yeah, not too disappointed to be out of the loop at this point.

Quoted from Elmer I couldn't stand the fact that the one that got the best reviews was the one with the homosexual. Now, I'm not saying anything against homosexuals and don't want to get into that topic. But that film wasn't as well made as some of the other films, had a very cliche "moral", and while it did have interesting visuals, it seemed very easy to make. The ONLY reason it did so well was because it was about a gay man and because if it wouldn't have won, I'm sure the judges and producers were scared gays would be upset and call it discrimination. As for Michael Bay, I think it's good to have directors like him judge. Because there are two other judges who are concentrating on telling the filmmakers how to tell better stories, and Michael is trying to get them to have their own "style" of cinematography and whatever. He concentrated more on the technical aspect of it, which is great for this competition because that's where a lot of them struggle. -Rubix

But is Michael Bay and Brett Rattner the best people to help young filmmakers develope their OWN personal style? We're talking about two of the most anonymous filmmakers in the business...

Get people like Darren Aronofsky or even David Fincher in there. The latter has mainstream appeal as well as talent.

The ONLY reason why I watch the show is because of the shortfilms and the process that goes into making them, and then to see who goes. That takes up about 10 minutes. Then the remaining half hour is about Adrianna Costa talking about Ford, Verizon and Transformers, and of course doing the 'suspenseful' beats before announcing whose movie gets to be shown tonight. Oh the suspense!

This show is so bad, when you think about what its subject matter is. It could've been great.

I don't understand why the film about the gay guy won so much praise either. I was almost cringing when I was watching it, its jokes didn't deliver and it was pretty pretentious. Maybe people were afraid after the backlash Getta Rhoom got last week? She did a pretty good job of setting it up as a 'controversial' film because of its subject matter. Maybe people felt 'brave' for liking it?

I feel so lost with this show.  What the hell was going on last night?  Are they, like, making it best of 5 for 3 weeks now or something?

I don't think any of the 5 directors from last night have much of a chance at anything to be honest.  The two films I liked were the musical and the toilet one, but I have such beef with the two filmmakers that I just don't care.  Sam has absolutely no personality.  He stood up there with a durr-faced grin the entire time, and Peanut Head Harvard Boy I don't  like by default.

The film about the gay guy sucked.  I don't know why people were off their rooster about that one.  The other two were kind of forgettable, I guess.

How are they going to work the vote-off?  I see two hours of "So You Think You Can Dance" tonight...

Quoted Text I don't think any of the 5 directors from last night have much of a chance at anything to be honest.  The two films I liked were the musical and the toilet one, but I have such beef with the two filmmakers that I just don't care.  Sam has absolutely no personality.  He stood up there with a durr-faced grin the entire time, and Peanut Head Harvard Boy I don't  like by default.

I think that's unfair. I was gonna say it's not a popularity contest, but...well it is.

I don't understand what their personalities have to do with it. I mean, I don't watch the show because of their star-quality, I watch it for their abilities. Let their work speak for them.

Stanley Kubrick was an asshole. Look what he accomplished.

Some people are just more introspective than others. I know if I was on, I wouldn't be one of those guys cracking jokes, flirting with Adrianna or doing that number thing with my fingers when I wanted people to vote for me. Michael Bay would probably hate me too. Which is comforting.

I guess I like to put myself in the position of the CEO of Dreamworks and I look at these people as if I were to handpick the one who I would give the million dollar deal to.  I know best personality isn't the object of this show, but if I want someone putting my company's name all over their films, I want them to be someone with a good personality and a positive aura, so likewise I would pretty much dissect everything these people do.  Hey, it keeps the show interesting.

Kubrick was an ass and it's a shame that that is part of his legacy.  David O. Russell is an asshole, too.  I think the video of him throwing a tantrum has been seen more than his actual films.  Basically, if I were in the position, I don't think I'd hire them because they are notorious dicks.  Ron Howard has a pretty impressive resume and he's known for being a laid back kind of guy, so I'd rather take my chances on him.  

BUT, back to the show, right now I like Andrew, Will and Shira-Lee because I think they're the best rounded.  And Shira is a babe, so she gets bonus points

Quoted from greg I guess I like to put myself in the position of the CEO of Dreamworks and I look at these people as if I were to handpick the one who I would give the million dollar deal to.  I know best personality isn't the object of this show, but if I want someone putting my company's name all over their films, I want them to be someone with a good personality and a positive aura, so likewise I would pretty much dissect everything these people do.  Hey, it keeps the show interesting. Kubrick was an ass and it's a shame that that is part of his legacy.  David O. Russell is an asshole, too.  I think the video of him throwing a tantrum has been seen more than his actual films.  Basically, if I were in the position, I don't think I'd hire them because they are notorious dicks.  Ron Howard has a pretty impressive resume and he's known for being a laid back kind of guy, so I'd rather take my chances on him.   BUT, back to the show, right now I like Andrew, Will and Shira-Lee because I think they're the best rounded.  And Shira is a babe, so she gets bonus points

You'd rather hire Ron Howard, because he's a nice guy, and then end up with something mediocre, than hire an asshole (which 90% of all geniuses are) and get a masterpiece? Isn't the movie the most important thing?

Andrew and Will are geniuinely nice guys. Especially Will. But I need to see some range on him. He's very sympathetic, but "sympathetic" and "nice" don't pay the bills.

Quoted from Death Monkey You'd rather hire Ron Howard, because he's a nice guy, and then end up with something mediocre, than hire an asshole (which 90% of all geniuses are) and get a masterpiece? Isn't the movie the most important thing?

Ron Howard's done some mighty fine movies, dude...I don't know where you're getting the mediocre from.  

Let me just clarify here; I wouldn't hire someone just because they're nice, that's insane.  We probably have different opinions here on Howard's work, but I'm a fan of it and if it came down to a Howard-Kubrick decision...I mean they both got decorated resumes, awards, box office smashes, but one of them is known for being a dick.  In a case like that, ya know, I'd probably take the nicer guy.  

Now obviously talent is talent.  If it came down to Jonathan Mostow or Kubrick, well, I'd take Kubrick in a heart beat.  But, ya know, Howard-Kubrick, at least IMO...personality may play a big part.

How can anyone not like Opie?

I think Ron Howard is great, besides he's still alive...

Kubrik might have been a genius, but if you have to work closely with someone, the nice guy will be my pick.

Quoted from greg Ron Howard's done some mighty fine movies, dude...I don't know where you're getting the mediocre from.   Let me just clarify here; I wouldn't hire someone just because they're nice, that's insane.  We probably have different opinions here on Howard's work, but I'm a fan of it and if it came down to a Howard-Kubrick decision...I mean they both got decorated resumes, awards, box office smashes, but one of them is known for being a dick.  In a case like that, ya know, I'd probably take the nicer guy.   Now obviously talent is talent.  If it came down to Jonathan Mostow or Kubrick, well, I'd take Kubrick in a heart beat.  But, ya know, Howard-Kubrick, at least IMO...personality may play a big part.

Oh sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you didn't particularly like Howard. If you think Howard is equally talented then I completely understand why you'd pick the nice guy over the asshole.

Personally he represents the Hollywood hired gun for me. No personal vision whatsoever. And he did Coocoon for which he must die.

Has he done entertaining films? Yes. Were they entertaining because of his direction? IMO, no.

He has made one movie that I actually really liked, which was The Missing. But other than that I imagine he's the kinda guy the studio calls and says"Ron, we need an Oscar winner! We've got Russel Crowe, 60 millon bucks and a plot about a true underdog story. P.S. Make Russel's character disabled in some way to gain audience sympathy"

I guess my point is, if the actual outcome, the movie itself will be just 1% better by hiring the world's biggest jerk, I would do it. And if the world's biggest jerk also happens to be the world's greatest filmmaker, he should win the competition.

I see where you're coming from and I think you're 99% right that, in the end, the personality of the director won't really change the outcome of the film for better or for worse, just getting to that point will be the adventure.  

It's like the saying that goes something like "what's more important: the end result or how you got there."  Some may argue either way.

I've enjoyed having this discussion with you!

Yeah I totally get that. I mean, if my life was miserable during the making of every film, I wouldn't be able to enjoy them much afterwards.

But then again, to the audience it wouldn't matter. Think The Shining. Kubrick's tantrum towards Shelley Duvall. Was it a horrible experience making that film? Yes. Did the film get better for it? Probably.

But it's really easy sitting here speculating when I've never done a film myself.

Anyways, back to On the Lot...

On The Lot isnt fairing in raitings... its averaging a 2.5 share.... (by contrast CSI's get about 9.5 and higher)

if this show is still on in two weeks i'll be surprised.

I think I've seen all the episodes so far....... did I miss something? Is it over? I can't find its schedule anywhere. I don't like having to really search for a show. That just results in me not watching at all.  >

It's on tomorrow at 8 on Fox.  Screw all the original criticisms, I think the way they're airing this is confusing everyone!  Are they going to do another 5 tomorrow?  Does someone get voted off?  Whaaaat?!

We get to see Shira-Lee tomorrow, though.  I'm looking forward to that. I discovered her existence over the weekend and suddenly I'm much more interested in this show