Cinematical Seven: Ways to Save 'On the Lot'

by Erik Davis Jun 7th 2007 // 8:01PM

Filed under: DIY/Filmmaking, Home Entertainment, Cinematical Seven


I've had enough. Ever since Fox first announced that Steven Spielberg and Mark Burnett were teaming up to produce a reality show in which aspiring filmmakers competed against one another for $1 million and an "office" at Dreamworks, I was skeptical but interested. Burnett is one of the best in the business at what he does, and Spielberg is, well, Spielberg. Surely, combined, the two would shell out one of the most talked-about reality shows in history, right? Wrong. This thing is a disaster. They can't decide on a consistent format, the host is a babbling mess and we never actually get to watch these kids making films (which, in my opinion, is the most appealing part of the show). Nope, instead, they give us random celebrity judges (out promoting their new movie), half-assed short films (with no explanation as to when or how they were put together) and a slew of contestants who are forgettable five seconds after they walk off stage. How did this happen? How do they fix it? Here are seven suggestions that, if applied correctly, could save On the Lot from its imminent cancellation.

1) Screw the American Idol format and start giving these kids tasks

The show got off to a great start when they asked each kid to come up with an original pitch based on one of five different loglines. Not only did this allow the audience at home to brainstorm their own ideas on how they would pitch the concept, but it gave us something to anticipate. What they should've done from there is maintained this mini-task theme; throw the kids into groups and ask them to make a one-minute film without any dialogue. Have them come up with a two-minute short utilizing three random objects placed in a box that, somehow, would have to be incorporated into the story. Give them a writing challenge. Give them a blue screen challenge. Force them to choose three strangers off the street to use as actors in a completely improvised short. Make this show fun. Make it exciting to watch. While filmmaking is a creative medium, all On the Lot does is take a gigantic piss on creativity by blatantly ripping off other, more successful shows in an attempt to convince the viewer that what they're watching makes sense, when it doesn't.

2) Show, don't tell

Film is a visual medium and yet all these people do is talk, talk, talk. Is anyone else sick and tired of the judges throwing out random bits of film terminology as if those at home know exactly what they're talking about? When D.J. Caruso says that he liked a contestant's use of a rack focus, show us the damn rack focus with a simple definition. God forbid someone actually learns something while they're watching. Oh, and in case you were interested (from the glossary of film terms): Rack Focus -- "A shot where focus is changed while shooting. Unlike a Follow Focus shot, a rack focus shot is usually done not from the necessity of keeping someone in focus but to shift attention from one thing to another."

3) Either replace Adriana Costa as host or give her a couple Valium before each show

Quite simply, the girl is a complete moron. But I can't even blame her; the show's format changes so much that she probably doesn't know what's going to happen until they feed her the line three seconds before she's supposed to say it. Regardless, she's all over the place and looks more uncomfortable on stage than Lindsay Lohan at a benefit concert for M.A.D.D. Either give her a few Valium before each show so that she calms down to level that's not ridiculously awkward (why does she want each contestant to wrap their arms around her -- is she that desperate for a hug?) or replace her with someone who actually knows a thing or two about how films are made. Wow, imagine that?

4) Explain the rules

Mark Burnett should know better. If you look at a show like Survivor or The Apprentice, each task is clearly defined and we know exactly how much the contestants were given (be it time, tools and resources) to complete the goal assigned to them. This week we were told each person had five days to complete a three-minute short film. Seeing as the show is live each week (and seeing how these shorts were apparently created in each contestant's home town), how in the world was it possible for them to shoot, cast and edit their shorts in the one week since the last episode? Oh, that's right, they didn't. Why? Because they've been sequestered in a mansion this entire time. What you watched this past week were submission tapes; films packaged together prior to the show going on the air. These weren't films completed in the week since the previous episode, and yet that was never told to us. A week before that, they were asked to complete a one-minute comedy short. Were they given a camera? A budget? Actors? How come none of this was ever explained to us?

5) We need to care more about the contestants

As it is right now, we know practically nothing about these people. Sure, we're beginning to learn a little bit through each of their films, but the show needs to become more personal. If they maintained the mini-challenge format, allowing us to stand alongside them as they rush to write, cast, shoot and edit, then the show automatically becomes more intimate. Not only that, but we'll actually see for ourselves who the best filmmaker truly is. Who works with actors the best, or knows how to maintain their sanity under extreme pressure. I want to see them fight, bicker, throw things at the wall. After all, this is reality television -- what good is the show if no one breaks down, threatens to walk off the show or gets rushed to the hospital?

6) Find guest judges that aren't just there to plug their upcoming movie

Michael Bay sat there like he wanted to shoot himself, and I wanted to shoot him for it. Not only that, but he (like Brett Ratner) is the wrong guy to give advice. "You stretched your two minute movie into a three minute movie." Oh, really Michael. Well, you've built an entire career stretching one-hour stories in three-hour epics. Did Pearl Harbor really have to be 184 friggin' minutes? And why is Michael Bay judging a slew of three-minute comedies? Each week should carry a theme, and each guest judge should be chosen based on that theme. I know Spielberg is calling in a lot of favors for this one, but c'mon. If you want my advice, here's what they should really do ...

7) Drop everyone and have Garry Marshall host the show by himself

He's the only reason I tune in each week; the guy has more one-liners than Andrew Dice Clay -- except, Marshall is actually funny. He's a great filmmaker who's been around the block more than a few times, and comes equipped with more knowledge than 150 Brett Ratners combined. He's personable, entertaining -- he's the kind of guy you want to invite over for dinner ... every single night. Heck, I wouldn't mind them ditching the entire show for an hour worth of Garry Marshall war stories. As it stands right now, something like that would be a lot more entertaining than what's currently being shoveled down our throats every Monday Wednesday Tuesday night.

20 Comments

Tags: adriana costa, brett ratner, cinematical, d.j. caruso, film, garry marshall, michael bay, movies, on the lot, OnTheLot, tv

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)