Photos
Video
'On the Lot' goes out with a whimper
TV viewers have been awaiting Tuesday (Aug. 21) night's finale of FOX's On the Lot with the same degree of eager anticipation as Red Sox fans preparing for an Eric Gagne relief appearance. Dread passed into resignation a long time ago, certainly by the time Zach Lipovsky essentially eliminated himself, but probably several months earlier.
Tuesday night may have been Steven Spielberg's most depressing evening since the early box office figures began pouring in for 1941. As the night began, he faced the prospect of giving a million dollar check to Will Bigham, Jason Epperson or Adam Stein.
The show's point, I believe, was to suggest that the Hollywood hierarchy wasn't working and that maybe going outside of the process you'd find some different voices. The foreign directors, the female directors, the minority directors and the few semi-experimental directors were weeded out by the halfway point. Instead, the contest came down to a group of young white men with unremarkable mainstream sensibilities.
I know. I sound harsh. And what's the point of kicking a horse this dead? Don't get me wrong -- Each of the three finalists did shorts that I respected a great deal. Adam may have peaked early with Dough: The Musical, but Army Guy and Worldly Possessions have their merits. In contrast, Jason got off to an absolutely atrocious start with Getta Rhoom, possibly the season's worst project, but he rebounded in the middle with Old Home Boyz and Sweet, showing actual maturation. And I always got fleeting pleasure out of Will's films, which were usually slight and unburdened by characters, dialogue or emotional depth. Will had the advantage of closing with The Yes Men, probably his finest work.
All three of the finalists should be encouraged to keep paying their dues in commercials and music videos, making a transition to TV work and possible indie features, but no studio head in their right mind would (or should) hand any of them a million bucks based on this body of work.
Oh -- and to make matters worse and render the results even more moot, the show's Internet voting system, the central part of the whole process, fell through last week, so online votes couldn't be counted for the finale. That should have been a sign to call a mulligan on the entire season, but host Adrianna Costa took great pains to insist that we had "a certified result and an official winner."
That official winner? Will Bigham.
Or, as Costa optimistically put it, "The winner of On the Lot 2007 [Wishfully suggesting an On the Lot 2008?] is ... Will Bigham."
Will seemed like a good guy, a family guy, and he didn't make a single film about mentally handicapped people being sent to Hell, so I'm glad for him. The announcement came with 10 minutes left in the finale and, in one of the most awkwardly staged moments in the history of television (or at least since Celine Dion did her duet with Zombie Elvis), Will hopped in a car and was taken to the DreamWorks lot, where he got to meet Spielberg, inconveniently on leave from Indiana Jones 4. Spielberg gave Will a big hug, claimed he loved all of his films and presented him with the key to his broom closet.
They'll never see each other again.
Other speedy thoughts from the finale:
So what'd you think of the results? Did American get it right? Will Will Bigham get a film made as part of his DreamWorks deal? And which contestant do you think will get a feature into theaters first?
Well, even I gave up on this show after last week's rerun-a-thon, opting to (mostly) watch America's Got Talent instead.
Still, I caught a few bits, including the eliminations, and have to say Will was probably the clear choice of the three. The only 'shock', if you can call it that, was that Jason came in 2nd; he should've been eliminated some weeks back.
As for the DreamWorks 'dream' job...I have a feeling that even the Apprentice winners got a better deal than he probably will (when comparing what they actually get to what seems to be implied on the shows themselves).
Not That Daniel | Aug 21, 2007 10:35:13 PM | #Okay, it was pretty much a lock, though my respect for Jason grew, and he was so often an audience favorite that I thought Will and Jason might actually split the popular vote and enable Adam to squeak through.
The show - Evidently, Adrianna was going straight from the studio to a regional theater production of Carmen. And was the repeated "On the Lot 2007" supposed to zombify us into believing that there would be a 2008? Really?
The vote - The internet voting DIDN'T WORK? And they still think it was legit? Look - everyone is happy with Will, so I doubt it will be challenged but come ON!
Will - May have just blown his Hollywood career by first thanking God. I liked him better for it, but I'm in the minority - for the future, Will, you thank Spielberg first, THEN God.
Spielberg - After touting his appearance on the finale last week, the UTTER SNOBBERY of not appearing in the studio and opting for this shabby meet-up, his hat covering his face, handing something which could have been the washroom key over to the hapless Will and when the voting glitch already tainting the victory, the I-was-rooting-for-you-from-the-beginning may not have been the right thing to say.
I've been watching since the beginning. I had great hopes for this show. I was sad to who America was voting for. Jason's work was okay, but I think Sam and Adam and especially ZACH should have stayed. Will's work was okay,but... I agree with you. I hope to see Zach's work in the future.
Terry | Aug 22, 2007 5:36:05 AM | #I REALLY LIKED THE CONCEPT OF THE SHOW. I DIDN'T LIKE THE NETWORK SWITCHING NIGHTS AND I REALLY WASN'T A BIG FAN OF MS. CASTAS. BUT AS A FAMOUS PERSON SAID "YOU CAN PLEASE SOME OF THE PEOPLE SOME OF THE TIME, BUT YOU CAN'T PLEASE ALL THE PEOPLE ALL THE TIME.":)
ALLAN | Aug 22, 2007 5:57:46 AM | #Zach should have won. But of the final three...Adam was clearly the best. I liked almost all of his movies and he was the most consistent. Will's movies were not original. He just took from other, bigger movies and made them smaller and stupider. He also played the freaking family card. He only won because the voters fell for his crap sob story.
Jeff | Aug 22, 2007 7:03:35 AM | #"The contest came down to a group of young white men with unremarkable mainstream sensibilities."
That's exactly what Spielberg is. Why would they want anything different?
Celine Dion and Elvis was great television.
Josh | Aug 22, 2007 8:32:37 AM | #I have watched the show from the beginning, and all I can say is that it was a train wreck from the beginning. The show's contestants had no real appeal and the film shorts were only helped by the actors -- who were the only ones with talent. Bravo! to them.
But alas, I tuned in every week... mostly to see what outfit Adrianna was going to wear (she is a beautiful woman, but she needs to fire her wardrobe person), and to satisfy my sick curiosity -- like a highway lookilou who slows and passes an auto accident.....
On The Lot 2008? I hope not....
I think that Will was the best by far and the most original. Adam's "Army Guy" was good, but it's a redo of a twilight episode about dolls being trapped in a can. Zach's last 2 films were not good, but he was overall better than Jason's. The 3 best were Will, Adam, and Zach, in that order. I was rooting for Will from the beginning. He was also the most consistent. Adam & Zach had some clunkers in there, so I think Will has the ability to pull off a really good feature film, as long as Steve doesn't try to dumb it down.
Jessica | Aug 22, 2007 8:48:59 AM | #I liked watching the movies each week (even though some of them sucked). The previous week was a total waste of time. I'm glad I recorded it so I could skip the dribble (about 80% of that show). Yesterday's show was even worse (again, thankful for my DVR!). Out of the three finalists, I thought Adam had the most talent, but I liked Will a lot as well. Like most everyone else, I thought Zack was going to win the thing until he hit the self-destruct button.
Adrianna Costa should win an award for being the worst host of all times. She is pleasant on the eyes, but that is ruined every time she opened her mouth! And the dramatic breaks to commercials and making those poor would-be directors wait while she made her dramatic pauses was totally uncalled for.
Carrie Fisher is either on drugs or needs to be on drugs. I would say the woman is nuts, but that isn't nice when it is true. She sure didn't need to be on a show like this (she also had no qualifications to be a judge on a show like this as she is no director and really not much of an actor).
Don | Aug 22, 2007 9:23:34 AM | #I was really excited about this show at the beginning, and really liked the format of the first two episodes, where the filmmakers were given challenges and we got to see them working and see their personalities. However, once they dumped that idea and switched the format to "American Idol" lite, I was really disappointed. I still watched and enjoyed some of the films, but would have much preferred to see behind-the-scenes of the making of the films as much or more than the finished product.
I can't believe this was a Mark Burnett production and I'm really surprised that Spielberg actually showed up on the finale. I figured he'd be too embarrassed to acknowledge his involvement.
And how bad was Adrianna? You'd think that over the course of the summer she would become more comfortable on stage, but the finale might have been her worst episode of all. Why can't she just read what's on the PrompTer and then shut her mouth? She always has to ad lib in an extra word or two and make herself look stupid.
I'd love it if this show would come back next year, and clearly with the names and talent behind the show, they could make it happen, but it would have to be completely retooled. Maybe Burnett can actually become involved rather than just putting his name on it.
Devon | Aug 22, 2007 10:27:05 AM | #The real problem with the show was that it wasn't about being a director it was about being a writer, director, editor, casting agent, etc. TO really see who had the Directing chops they all needed to have been given the same five pages of script to shoot.
David | Aug 22, 2007 12:21:23 PM | #Zach has a agent and almost ready too sign a commerical deal (has to wait 6months) i heard he was told his career would be better if he didnt win and his work shows that Look at the girl taking the sun out the sky then look at his last 2 he did everything but say i quit as for 3 boring white guys who you think would be left its hollywood look for Jason to direct superbad 2 and be called the next HOT director LOL (all reality shows are rigged Just a FYI)
john | Aug 22, 2007 12:23:51 PM | #Zach was by far the most talented but he learned the Hollywood maxim that you're only as good as your last movie. He had a flop one week then pushed a bad position and got voted off. As for the final three, Jason had two #1 box office movies over the course of the summer. In picking his 'final two' movies neither of those #1s was chosen. Someone should tell this guy about knowing his strengths and weaknesses. Adam can do uplifting, fun and musical and Will's stuff is charming though I don't think Will has the goods to do a two-hour movie.
Chris | Aug 22, 2007 1:17:46 PM | #Anyone who would insist on wearing a cap turned sideways deserves to lose.
I thought it was a neat concept and I liked Garry Marshall's comments. He was a class act. Carrie Fisher, what was she even hired for that job, at all? I'd tune into On the Lot again, if they would just tweak it a little.
Lisa | Aug 22, 2007 3:39:24 PM | #Zach was by far the best, most creative person there, but he'll do far better on his own than if he'd won the show. I look forward to seeing more of his work in the future. The concept of the show was ok, but the wannabe directors were given far more than directing to do, not a fair way to judge them. I won't be watching next year, if they're foolish enough to bring it back.
Dana | Aug 22, 2007 6:39:47 PM | #I like alot of the viewers had high hopes for this show.
The concept was great.
But the host ruined it for me
she introduces the show
she should be hosting a Pussy Cat doll show.
No class; no brains; no humour
so that was our first intro to the show.
Carrie is out to lunch which is too bad.
Now to the show itself
the directors that were in the end were the safer ones.
I thought it was tacky that Steven S didn't appear in the studio and agree it was a very awkward moment at the end
very badly directed and thought out concept
he should have been in the studio.
Zach should have won but they picked someone safe and competent.
They need to change the host and format next year.
It is supposed to be a creative search and it turned out to be a clunker conceptually
Zach was the best...period...The only reason I watched the show was because of him...the minute he got voted of the berable show became too UNBERABLE
sara | Aug 23, 2007 5:50:29 AM | #I wonder if Spielberg was a hologram? Particularly since he's supposed to be shooting in some far off place. I've met him and he's not that tall. Certainly he's not Will's height, who was taller than Adriana. Spielberg's about 5'6.
KR | Aug 23, 2007 12:36:13 PM | #Whoever it was up there that said all reality shows are rigged is wrong. I work in reality TV.
To the hologram conspiracy theorist, Will Bigham is not a tall guy. Spielberg may be an icon/legend/filmmaking giant, but he's also just a human being who spared a half hour of his life to kindly bring this journey to a close for those people who were actually still invested (like, oh say, Will Bigham), ratings be damned. Ever consider he might be excited about Will? Happy to have the opportunity to make this guy's dream come true? The prize Will gets may not end up being as awesome as was implied, but he'll be working with Dreamworks, which is more than what he had, and he'll probably have more important things to do at the end of the day than ripping on reality shows online (I am including myself in this moderately pathetic category, of course).
Kudos to Will, and may On the Lot rest in peace. 2008? I shudder to think. That being said, I guarantee someone at the On the Lot offices is being flooded with submissions from 2008 hopefuls at this very moment.
Parker | Aug 25, 2007 11:09:24 AM | #Can Adrianna only speak in 3 second bursts? I know she was trying to draw out the anticipation near the end, but she seemed to have trouble completing a sentence. How is it possible for someone to get progressively worse at hosting?
The staged meeting of Steven and Will (conveniently occurring right in front of the Dreamworks sign) was high comedy. Given that Steven and Will both seem like genuinely good guys; I blame Mark Burnett for that entire debacle.
Great idea, BAD development. Was spielberg on same meds as Carrie? what was wrong with him, he should have pull the plug on this show after 2 episodes and fire everybody in development, aplogize to us and start again next year. Will is the good guy but we will never her from him again. He is not hollywood material, maybe lifetime tv, but not real hollywood. show was doomed from the get go, bad idea, web site was bad, Adriana was eye candy until she speaks...there will not be 2008 season. they should have learn from project greenlight much better show.
DC | Aug 27, 2007 7:17:04 AM | #LOVED this show--I could have watched it every day! I thought it was superior to the first season of the Apprentice, which I thought was a great concept before it became so brand/cross-selling focused. I really don't understand why the ratings were so poor, but the limitations that they caused impacted the rest of the season in a negative way. I must have been in the minority, but I wanted to see more films, and more from each of the directors. Seeing how each person creatively dealt with the weekly challenge was fascinating. I agree that Adrianna Costa was possibly the worst host ever. She gave the whole enterprise a low budget, low priority taint, which I don't think it deserved. As for the judges--I thought that Garry Marshall was great, the guest judges overall good, and although I like Carrie Fisher, I don't think she was the best choice. Someone with stronger acting or writing credentials would have added more to the paneI. As for the director finalists, I thought that Zach was the strongest and should have won, and I would have eliminated Jason after his first film. His lead character so completely appeared to be a person with special needs as opposed to a nerd, I couldn't believe that Jason didn't see that. I hated Adam's bakery musical, but was very impressed by some of his other films. Although Will seemed like a great guy, I didn't think he was consistently strong. A little too much of a wincing "ick" factor for me with the exposed brain and glass eye. I can see him being very good at directing kid-oriented films. Definitely hoping to see great things from Zach.
CMP | Aug 29, 2007 5:42:57 PM | #I loved the show and watched the movies again and again. I liked Jason best by far, Zach 2nd and did not like the one who won. Carrie Fisher was a dope, too "conservative" when it suited her and then picking a "potty mouth" one when it suited her. Garry Marshall ok but his daughter, Penny seemed drunk as did Carrie at times. I would like to see this show again but with a different judging panel and faster, not depending on US to vote, but real directors to vote and the results immediate.
samara | Sep 20, 2007 8:35:46 AM | #I make films, this should have been a simple show to execute but was artificially put together. Contetants should have the same script, there only task should be to direct.with the exception of there first film with which in my opinion all they should be allowed to use is one hand camera and a few friends. Let them prove they are capable of a blair witch, then have directors run the panel, and gary host the show.guest appearances are good. Zach 1, will 2, and probably adam.kenny and g for gesus. Should stick to youtube. Adrianna should stick to playboy...magazines only!
baj | Jan 11, 2008 6:29:33 AM | #
Zap2it Twitter Talk
