***ON THE LOT: Official Discussion Thread***

I entered my X3i Divinity Trailer. Hopefully I might have a small shot.. Not too many people have submitted a film along those lines. We'll see though. Either way, best of luck to all!

 

NZPoe

I completely agree with your post. That's the reason why I didn't apply, at least not this season.

Look at American Idol. Who exactly has made it? Kelly Clarkson comes to mind? Only because she switched Record Companies, and obviously she has what it takes (not just talent) to make it. Whereas the 50 other hopefuls and winners haven't made a name for themselves.

If you win On the Lot, who's to say you'll make it to stardom? Careers come and go, and "On the Lot" may not be the blessing you're looking for. You may have talent, but if you don't have the experience or the abilities to pull off a feature film, stick to budget, and more importantly, do things on time, you won't last long in the business. Also if you're suddenly given a big deal with Dreamworks and you are able to complete the film, if it's both a box office bomb and a terrible movie, well good luck getting another job.

Like they say, time is money, and working directors are those directors that stay on schedule.

I mean if you happen to win it, you're only used to your student films, and a few on the lot shorts, who's to say you can do a big Hollywood movie?

Not to mention the concept of the show seems a bit sketchy. You don't always get to direct the film. From what it sounds like you may only get one or two chances to actually direct, and the rest of the time you're just producing (how are people supposed to see how talented you are like that?), not to mention there's lots of behind the scenes, so if you're not a popular character you may not get the votes.

It's all very sketchy and I'd rather see one season first and see the outcome, and if they come with a second season, then I'll think about maybe applying.

 

Here's my submission,

The Best Man

Shot last summer, written specifically for the competition.

Give a rating and leave a comment!

Please.

--
Jamball

 

Umm...Clay Aiken? Bo Bice? Jennifer Hudson?

It's much easier to get a second movie than a first movie, even if you make a bomb. Also, if you make a cheap first movie ($20 million or less), even if it isn't a smash, it'll make a profit, and you'll get a second gig.

And making a film in under a week won't show anything in that respect?

On the Lot is exposure, and that's what matters. I entered the second half of Monkey's Paw (not yet uploaded). I'd love to win, but there's still a lot to be gained just by being on the show.

M. Scott

 

Thats all stupid talk to me...

Its called a chance.. and a big one at that. Nothing but exposure. I dont understand why anyone would not want the oppurtunity. Saying it could hurt your career... What career? hah You gotta have a career before you start talking about the possibility of ruining your career ha. This competition'll be huge and I'll be damned if I put my tail between my legs because Im scared that it could hurt my career as a director in the industry.

You talk about the singers in American Idol and how it did nothing for their careers.. WRONG, atleast they got exposure. If anything it helped them out, cuz it sure as hell didnt hurt them. The only people it hurt were the people that sucked in the auditions.. in which those people wouldve never had a music career in the first place. And the same will be applied to On The Lot.

I highly doubt they are going to bring on your regular Joe Schmoe with a home video camera making home videos with the date and time on the screen of his video on this show. Im sure they'll bring on people who have some sort of experience or show that they could direct a big movie. Following budget isnt the hardest thing in the world. Its the same as living.. people follow budgets all the time.

And whos to say that the only people picked will be students and have only worked on student films? Also if your first box office movie is a bomb, well.. too bad. Its prob youre (the filmmakers) fault. But say you get the chance to direct a big feature film some other way besides this contest. Are you going to say "No, I dont want to direct it. It might bomb at the box office and I'll never get another directing job after that " I mean come on...

If someone is afraid of doing bad infront of the public, then the film industry isnt exactly for them.

 

I'd say American Idol has gained more clout with people like Kelly Clarkson, Carrie Underwood, and Jennifer Hudson (can we say Golden Globe AND Oscar winner?).

Perhaps one of the reasons you don't direct every week is they want to see if you really know about making movies. Or if you can take instruction. Or maybe the season just isn't long enough to have you direct every project

Either way, it will be a lot of fun to watch. Just so long as it doesn't seem like they're deliberately sabotaging the thing the way the "Project Greenlights" seemed to do. Of all the entrants that show got it seemed they always picked the folks who might make excellent tv but didn't really possess the long range talent. Don't get me wrong, I loved yelling at the people on PG and enjoyed the entertainment but I would hope that with Spielberg being associated it really would be about finding talent.

It's a great opportunity. I wish everyone who submitted the best of luck!

 

I think Nitroblade and I have similar sentiments, though possibly slightly different interpretations on the show itself. On this point I wouldn't disagree with you nor DorkmanScott - the show IS about exposure and getting exposure when you have nothing (or very little) to work with right now is the best thing you can do for yourself. I don't think anybody here is saying exposure is a bad thing. It's just ensuring that you get the right kind of exposure and be ready and willing to pounce on opportunity should it happen to mosey along.

But what I AM saying is that people shouldn't rush head-on into the process thinking that this is going to be their "big break" and three years from now they'll be rubbing shoulders with Spielberg or James Cameron. That is clearly not what this show is about and it certainly isn't the prize they're offering.

The prize they're offering is a development deal. Development deals are not guaranteed to turn into greenlit feature films. Hell they're not even offering the winner the chance to DIRECT it, should the movie get greenlit. There are realities that people shouldn't overlook WHEN they apply for the show and be ready to deal with any difficulties they face in making their film-director-wannabe-dreams come true.

All I'm saying is to approach this with caution, not "don't attempt it". Don't overestimate what is being offered so you don't end up with a broken heart at the end if you ARE the winner and THEN everything goes down the toilet.

I think this is the point of contention between myself and a lot of other people. This show is not about finding the next Spielberg or seeing if the contestants have the chops to survive in Hollywood or anything like that. If they're looking for talent, I couldn't think of a stupider and more time-wasting way to try and find it than competitive filmmaking. It's totally removed from the reality of how the film business operates. Film-making doesn't work this way. The show is about the SHOW, that's all it is. The prize is a gimmick to put a new spin on an old competitive reality-TV format. Anybody who is on the show is there for their entertainment value - as people AND as (possibly) talented filmmakers.

The reality is that any contestant who makes it onto the TV show will likely be just as capable as making a feature film for Dreamworks as ANY other contestant. The selection process is nothing more than putting filmmakers through the grinder and seeing who lasts the distance - which is not an environment that any production company or studio would want to attempt in real life in order to get a movie made.

Sure we hear stories about studio pressure and execs throwing monkey-crap at their artists in attempts to rein the production under tight control, but most of the time they do try very hard to ensure that stress and pressure doesn't limit the creativity of the guy they've hired to make the movie for them.

The format of "The Lot" is the exact opposite of this and has as much business validity as shows like "The Apprentice". You're not getting a feature-film at the end of the show. You're getting a development deal. And they're not looking to see who's the best filmmaker out of "The Lot", the format is almost entirely opposite to the normal process of Hollywood's (and other countries') film development.

Whether you're only watching the show as a spectator, or gunning for the top spot, it is very important to remember that.

 

Right *rolls eyes*

I never said directly that it would ruin your "career". I just said that you may not start one up because of this show. So to say "What career? hah" is just completely twisting around my words. Next time quote someone properly please...

Not to mention it's very possible that a lot of contestants actually have a career in film making already, having won some awards, entered their films into festivals, and may be a rising name in the indy world, but then they get this shot and PERHAPS everything goes down the drain.

Not to mention that perhaps going on the path you're already going will bring you to stardom, but the jump start from the show may just ruin your chance. But that's too much speculation.

I'm not saying any of this would be true, but perhaps I'm completely right.

Fine, you're right on this point and I was wrong, I'll admit that. Exposure is what it's really about. But it seems to be the only thing you're right about and the only thing on the lot is good for, which is a good thing, but it all depends.

How you are wrong. Budgeting a movie has nothing to do with budgeting your every day living.

You'd be surprised to find out how many movies out there run out of money and never see the light of day. Didn't Halo risk being shut down because of budgeting? I mean if Peter Jackson has trouble budgeting... (I may be wrong about this, but I thought I heard it somewhere).

Every day costs money, night shoots cost more, action scenes, stunts, you have to take into account the actors and how long they may take, problems that arise on set, if you don't stick to schedule it just costs even more money, and sometimes during production, or at the end of production you'll find you'll have less money than with what you started with and you won't have money to pay the composer, the visual effects, etc... Plus all the unexpected expenses.

Paying for your grocceries and bills is one thing, but having to spend thousands EVERY DAY and feeding a cast and crew of dozens or more, well it's far more difficult and not even close to being on the same scale my friend.

Don't think budgeting a film is a walk in the park. It's do-able, yes, but not comparable to living.

See you're right about it being possible that it may not just be students, but more than likely it'll be individuals that are used to directing shorts. Also the concept of the show seems to be finding a new artist, someone fresh, not someone who's on his way already to making it big.

Actually there are cases where it's not the directors fault. It could easily be the producers fault for changing the movie in the cutting room. But that's not the point.

The point I was trying to make is the same as NZPoe I believe mentioned, that contestants for on the lot just won't cut it for making a big hollywood film. It's not in their field. Most directors u

 

The reason I don't tend to post my full thoughts right away is because usually somebody will come along and save me the trouble.

I agree with every word of NZPoe's post.

 

That and people like me are too lazy to read any post over 2 paragraphs.

 

I believe NZPoe and NitroBlade are correct--one should approach this show with a "glass half empty" mindset as it is not about discovering talent or star creation. That was "Project Greenlight." This show is patterned on "Survivor, The Apprentice, The Real World and Road Rules." It's about competition and conflict--the social interaction between egotistical wannabes for the viewers' amusement. Who will be this show's naked guy, bitch, punk or even "staypuff & bushbaby" duo? Despite a noble effort in weeding out the turkeys, PG had high intentions and failed because of it. Might these failures be a more honest representation of the quality of unsigned talent in these fields (writing & directing)? I would hate to think so but it may just be as good as it gets. As for "On the Lot," it may succeed because it's a circus show and will appeal to a lowbrow audience, if it's interested. After all, it is Fox.

 

I think there are no better movies "ON THE LOT" than DARK RESURRECTION

http://films.thelot.com/films/2893

Don't you?

 

Here's my entry:

"Schrodinger's Bedroom"
A comedy about love, commitment, and quantum mechanics.

From idea conception to when it was submitted was exactly 28 days. I only really entered because my wife dared me to

 

Hi Chris, funny how small the internet is. I just came across your blog while Google searching "Thanksgiving With the Kranzes" a few days ago.

Glad you enjoyed it and good luck with your film!

<---Cowriter/codirector of "Thanksgiving With the Kranzes"

 

Brian, that really was one of the most brilliant short films I ever saw. Congrats on a job well done!

Thanks man, 'preciate it. And good luck to you too with all your film endeavours

 

I CAN'T FIND MY SUBMISSION!!!

I mailed my submission Trailer - Dark Moon to them on Feb. 10th; that's four days before they shut their doors. The thing is I'm from Germany, so the mail would take 2-4 days to arrive - but still, it said "submissions must be POST MARKED Feb 14th", so I don't get it, really...

 

The website says that not all accepted submissions are neccesarily online...

 

If you upload a film, and it's on the series website, that means they recieved your dvd in the mail, correct?

 

Hey guys. We made the animated fan film "Batman's Gonna Get Shot in the Face": http://www.ifilm.com/video/2766332

We also made "Nintendo: Oldschool Revolution" http://www.ifilm.com/video/2686716


last, but not least... we made these hilarious Batman and Spider-Man videos:
Batman: http://www.ifilm.com/video/2829730
Spider-Man: http://www.ifilm.com/video/2829737


What I'm posting about now is the fact that we just found out our film submission to Spielberg's "On the Lot" contest actually went through after some technical difficulties with the website. If you don't mind, give our new film (you'll love it) a watch and let us know what you think by either rating it or leaving a review. It's called "Harvey Daggit and the Devil's Olives" and you can see it here: http://films.thelot.com/films/18290

 

here are the three that I acted in. check them out if you would like. however, i've already heard from two people who made it to the next stage so I think that they've already made their selections.

Scott Eggleston's: "middle of nowhere"

http://films.thelot.com/films/3390

Lucas McGraw's: "detour"

http://films.thelot.com/films/23107


Tony Henrichsen's: "the gilded scarab"

http://films.thelot.com/films/20174

enjoy.. feel free to comment.

tye

 

When is this going to air? I dont see a date on the site.

 

May 16th

 

I don't know if any of you watch American Idol but the other night they showed some examples of mini-movies/entries(?) during the commercial breaks. I only caught two of them so I don't know if there were more.

I wonder if these are actual finalist possibilities? Or if this is just a new promotional bit and they used them because they featured some special effects.

 

Someone on another board made one of them. Apparently it's purely promotional, as he hasn't been officially contacted to participate at this time.

Also, the premiere has been shifted once again, to May 22, so as not to overlap with American Idol's final week.

M. Scott