On The Lot - Season One Thread (1 Viewer)

[Brian W. Ralston]

The cost of shooting, post production and broadcasting a show in HD is significant. For a reality show which has yet to prove itself in the homes of viewers...FOX can not justify the expense. If this show is a hit after a couple seasons, it would probably be converted to HD at that point.

 

[Chris]

Not bad. But I still can't get over my internal dislike for Carrie Fischer, so there is that.

The show seemed to goofy in comparison to say, Project Greenlight. I think we're just going to see a lot of contests and not the making of any real film.

 

[ChristopherG]

hmmm. Might be an interesting show once it gets moving. Premiere was a little sketchy and seemed like an inordinate amount of egomaniacs...

 

[Jason Harbaugh]

These first tasks are quite easy and it is surprising to see so many choke. Nerves is one thing, but these people had to do a lot of that during the interview process in the cities already. Your film was only a part as this is a reality show and they want specific personalities to make it interesting.

It is kinda funny that they keep showing where they are 'from originally' but 25 of the 50 live in either LA or NY.

Hopefully we get to see some real talent shine throughout the show, but I admit I'm looking forward to seeing those that fall flat on their face as well.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

I really enjoyed this, it'll be a nice replacment for the hole that will be left by AI when it ends.

Some of those guys were just BAD during those pitches, but there's a very fundemental flaw with the pitch challenge, if you were pitching a film for real, your genuine enthusiasm might make you deliver a much better pitch than you would if you were given a random topic and told to pitch it.

IMO caring about what your pitching and having your heart be truly into it will make others feel your enthusiasm and make for a much more successful pitch meeting.

Plus having visual aids help, too, like when James Cameron pitched Titanic, he brought along a copy of Don Lynch's 'TITANIC: An Illustrated History' and said that he basically wanted to bring Ken Marschall's paintings to life and that went a long way to selling the idea.

In the end I just feel that they lacked a couple of key things that they needed to deliver a good pitch, they had to fake enthusiasm and that' s one of the things that hurt most of them, I know that I personally would have a hard time sounding excited about something that I felt nothing for.

Very entertaining, though.

 

[Jason_V]

I'm in for the next 13 weeks, though I got a little annoyed with the entire group by the 45 minute mark. Like the judge's said, sleep before you come in to pitch and don't make excuses. That's Reality 101, not just Moviemaking 101.

I can understand being nervous about the pitch. You're not only pitching to three names in Hollywood, but you're also being taped for broadcast around the world later.

But Ratman? Are you kidding me? That's the best you could do?

 

[LarryDavenport]

I'm just saying it's great that for the price of a digital camcorder, a good mic, and a Mac, a person can make a pretty great movie for a lot less than I made, with a 16mm camera, tripod, boom mic, wireless mics, portable mixer, Nagra sound sync recorder, lights, and several thousand feet of film and audio tape, processing, booking a room to watch dailies, having to do reshoots, renting an editing suite, renting a sound mixing studio, hiring a negative cutter, before finally getting a final print.

I wish I had today's technology then, because I wouldn't have gone broke and probably would have kept making movies.

I think this show is a great idea, I just hope they don't pull an American Idol and make us watch a bunch of crap before showing anything good. I saw enough crappy shorts in film school.

 

[Brent M]

Well, I almost tuned out when I saw that Brett Ratner was one of the judges, but I figured I would at least stick with the entire episode to see whether the series was worth watching. After getting through it I'm still not sure whether or not this show is going to be any good. It certainly seems a lot less professional than Project Greenlight and I don't think I will enjoy it nearly as much as I enjoyed the seasons of PG, but I'll probably end up watching anyway as there is very little else on my summer TV schedule.

 

[Aaron Silverman]

In a couple of years, EVERYTHING is going to be in HD. Remember, it's the law!

I actually enjoyed this enough to flip back and forth between it and the Dancing finale. Of course, it's not *exactly* what I as a film buff would consider ideal -- this is to, say, Project Greenlight as The Contender is to watching regular boxing matches. But it's still pretty entertaining.

 

[Jason Harbaugh]

Not really. They should already have all the cameras, and if they don't they could have easily gotten Panasonic, Canon or Sony to be a sponser and provide extra cameras. I couldn't believe that the cameras they were using for their short 24 hour films were using old Panasonic DVX100B, standard def cams. If any show should have been in HD, it would be this one. As for extra cost in post production, there shouldn't be any. HD is no different than SD. There is no editor out there now that doesn't do native HD at the same speed as SD. The only additional costs might be for decks. But I don't know of any post production house that is not setup to produce in HD now. We are a small 2 man opperation and even we have been set for 2 years now.

I wonder what the filmmakers will be using when they start the real competition and have access to full crews. Will it be 35mm film or HD or still stuck with backyard handicams?

Anyone know what the ratings were like?

 

[AnthonyC]

I thought it was fantastic, although the host was horrible. I also wish they'd started with less contestants.

Ratings weren't too good--lost over half the Idol lead-in, although that's against the DWTS finale.

 

[Brent M]

No, everything will be "digital" and that's only if the law isn't pushed back even farther(which I think it will be due to the fact that HD is still not taking off the way people expected).

 

[Brian W. Ralston]

Post houses charge almost 4 times as much to process, dub, transfer, etc...HD material. And being a network show...everything is union and they are paying list price for all their services. No one is going to give FOX a break. The hard drive storage requirements are much greater...the computer systems have to be the newer ones and not the older gear lying around that is cheaper to rent. It even affects things like the make-up department. HD is so clear that individuals who wear make-up usually have to have it air brushed on as the sponge stokes of the "old way" of applying make-up show up in HD. Sets even have to be constructed with more care. Also...since HD is usually shot in 24 frames per second...but most post and sound is still done at 29.97 frames per second...the digital material has to be transferred and converted for the post people at an additional cost. And there is the mixing in 5.1 sound for HD broadcast, etc...(even though there is little surround for a reality show like this...the 5.1 stems and the fall back stereo mix would still have to be created for HD).

Trust me on this one...I have done it. To do a simple dub of a DigiBeta tape of an episode costs about $60. To dub an HD tape costs over $150 because the decks are so expensive...depending on what post house is doing it. Fox like any other network show is hiring out post houses to do their work for them. That same price increase is seen around the board on everything that is required to produce an HD show. And for a show which has yet to prove itself in the arena of public opinion...the studio is going to error on the side of saving money anywhere it can.

You see this with a lot of scripted TV shows too....even higher priced shows on pay TV like HBO. Remember the first season of Entourage was not in HD. But it is now...now that it has a fan following and has proven itself a good show. This is due to a lot of the same reasons.

 

[Aaron Silverman]

I still think that starting it against DWTS was a horrible idea. I wonder if the Thursday show will pick up more viewers -- I didn't even realize there was going to be a Thursday show until yesterday afternoon!

I doubt they'll be doing the shorts on film. In the amount of time they probably have to get them done, there's too much margin for error in terms of processing time.

 

[Jason Harbaugh]

It is still drops in a bucket compared to where things were just a year or two ago. With a show like this highlighting film and hopefully 'quality' film there is no excuse for it not being in HD. Fox's checkbook could handle it. They may have had their reasons, and it probably was pinching pennies, but it was a bad move IMO.

 

[Chris Lockwood]

> Some of those guys were just BAD during those pitches, but there's a very fundemental flaw with the pitch challenge, if you were pitching a film for real, your genuine enthusiasm might make you deliver a much better pitch than you would if you were given a random topic and told to pitch it.

Yes, plus in real life you aren't given a concept then forced to come up with a pitch in a few hours. Is the director even the one who normally does the pitch? I thought it would be a writer or producer.

Did the show run long? I recorded from 9-10, but my recording ended where 2 teams were filming near each other & started arguing about that... what else did I miss?

From the tasks assigned so far, they seem to be promoting the idea of a filmmaker as a one-person show who has to come up with the movie concept, pitch it, write the script, direct it, etc. (Yes, I realize they had 3-person teams in the second task, but nobody was assigned a distinct role.)

I was surprised they went to a second task on the first episode. Couldn't they just have showed us more of the first task?

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

I know, that was the most insipid and ridiculous idea i've heard in a long time.

 

[Scott-S]

Chris, that is where it ended. I guess it was a "cliff hanger" scene.

 

[Bryan X]

It was a minute or so after 10 by the time it actually ended.

 

[Brian W. Ralston]

Jason...I understand your point. Believe me I do. But this is FOX we are talking about. I guarantee you none of the creators or financiers of this reality show are doing it to highlight film or anything of quality. At best, they think if they put a bunch of egomaniacs in a room who are all dying to break into the entertainment industry, it will make people want to tune in and watch the train wreck unfold.

And, whoever wins the show will not instantly have a career in this town. It just does not happen that way. There is too much money on the line for this town to go with anyone "unproven". What Gary Marshall said to one of the nervous guys pitching was correct...It costs about $100,000.00 a day to shoot a film. No studio is going to put someone in charge of that who is not confident and does not have a proven track record that they can manage that and not screw it up.

Regardless of FOX having deep pockets or not...the budget allocated to this reality show I am sure is very tight. If it made financial sense to produce the show in HD, they would. They aren't in HD...so it probably did not make financial sense. And to them...it is all about the bottom line. Just think of the cost if all of those 3 man teams had HD cameras too and the support required to put all of these 2 minute films together in that short period of time in HD. Plus just producing the TV show itself. Is HD cheaper now than 2 years ago? Yes. It is financially viable for a new reality show that no one knows will be a hit yet or not? Nope.

Again...this is FOX. The network that has proven time and time again that it will cancel good original TV shows because they arent bringing in the ratings that were expected or projected. They don't keep pouring money into any show that isn't producing what was expected...regardless of the artistic value the show has.