A blog about television by TIME’s TV critic James Poniewozik.

On the Lot: Cut!

Dear Mark Burnett,

We like our summer reality TV at the Tuned In household. We have fond memories of sultry nights watching Big Brother, Project Runway, the first season of American Idol--hell, even American Juniors. So Tuned In was quite the receptive audience for On the Lot, your filmmaking competition. I told people I had faith that you could make this into compelling TV; I even said nice things about The Contender, for God's sake. But you're losing me, and here's why:

1. The Format. You could have gone in two directions with this show: the boutique, Project Runway approach, where you spend most of your time behind the scenes with the contestants, showing the stress and fights and creative challenges; or the American Idol route, where you parade them on live TV for a home voting audience. Ten times more people watch American Idol, so I guess I can't blame you for making the latter choice, but it totally drains the interest out of your 18 finalists, an indistinguishable mass that I now think of as 17 Finalists Plus the One Guy Who Does All the Special Effects and Will Probably Win.

2. The Host. I will never say anything bad about Ryan Seacrest again. I'll never even say anything bad about Brooke Burke again. The choice of host says a lot about your aspirations for the show, and your choice of second-string entertainment-news host Adrianna Costa--oversmiling, emphasizing every other word with upward-pointed index fingers, referring to everyone as "you guys"--says, "Our show's not quite classy enough to get Jillian Barbarie to host it, so let's settle for a Jillian Barbarie type."

3. The Judges. Since when is everyone in Hollywood so freaking nice? You've managed to convene a panel of Paula Abduls. You have Carrie Fisher, turning every judgment into a self-deprecating joke or Star Wars reference; avuncular Garry Marshall, marveling over and over how amazing it is that they let broads direct pictures these days; and the rotating guest judges, whose assessments of even the lousiest clips conclude, "...but it was really well-made." You need at least one Simon Cowell or Michael Kors type, who is willing to be blunt with the contestants and able to articulate what's right or wrong with their work. Which brings us to...

4. The Movies. I guess I can see why you went with "One-minute comedies" as your first competition theme--that's what people like to watch on YouTube, right? The problem is, it was like watching two hours of so-so YouTube without the ability to click to another video. Even the funniest videos we saw last night weren't really movies: they were well-made commercials. (The bit about the woman taking cell-phone calls during labor needed only a Verizon title card at the end and you could have sold the airtime for several hundred thou.) I mean, I like a puking alien as much as the next guy, and I fully expect to see one during the first quarter of the next Super Bowl for Bud Lite, but can an actual good filmmaker win a competition like this, or will it just go to the most capably glib hack? Which brings us finally to...

5. The Challenges. Part of the problem with the comedy challenge is that it was just too broad. If you want to show the differences between the contestants, do what Project Runway does and give them more tightly restricted challenges--shooting the same premise, or even the same scene--and let their differences, and characters, emerge in the different ways they pull off the same job. (Speaking of challenges, what happened to the make-a-movie-in-one-hour challenge at the end of the second episode? Were the results that bad?)

I could go on, but judging from the ratings so far, I may be the only one left watching at this point. I'm not completely giving up on On the Lot yet, because I know that reality TV, like moviemaking, is a process. But the dailies are not looking good.

  • Print
  • Comment
Comments (12)
Post a Comment »
  • 1

    "You need at least one Simon Cowell or Michael Kors type, who is willing to be blunt with the contestants and able to articulate what's right or wrong with their work."

    I think that was one of the major reasons I liked Dancing With The Stars so much when I started watching it this year. The judges did the usual "wow, that was great" or "that was awful" comments, but they also followed up with had very precise and specific critiqes of the dancers. It wasn't like AI, where Randy and Paula are as incoherantly enthusiastic as possible, and Simon grimly tries to counterbalance them no matter how deserved the praise may be.

    On DWTS, all three judges (even the "nice" Carrie Ann and Bruno) would talk about the footwork, posture, use of space, style choices, steps, and other technical aspects of the contestants' performances. So and so had poor posture, this person was off beat, that person did a great fill-in-the-blank step that made his Foxtrot particularly difficult. As a result, the show became vastly more interesting for me. Commenting on the way a dancer "led with his heel" gives the contestant a useful bit of feedback on what to improve, and it also educates the viewer. If more reality shows did their contests like that, I'd watch.

  • 2

    "(Speaking of challenges, what happened to the make-a-movie-in-one-hour challenge at the end of the second episode? Were the results that bad?)"

    I was conviced I missed a show, it seems like every one I watch are a new format, a new verison on the show.

  • 3

    1) mark burnett is an idiot, i thought that was common knowledge...
    2) quit comparing it to "project runway." i cant believe people actually watch that

  • 4

    Burnett sure does make a lot of money with some popular shows for an idiot.

  • 5

    it is to be sure a big dissapointment...but i still think the premise could have worked big time...c'mon a reality show with aspiring directors--that'd have to be more interesting then ones about aspiring singers or fashion designers...however the format is definitely not good to say the least. so basically i wish it was better...but i still love the idea.

  • 6

    Stop calling the panel "judges" and what they offer "scores." Everything else is film-themed. They aren't scoring anything. Call them "critics," and their advice "reviews."

    Lose this host, asap. She can't ad-lib, she can't improvise, she's a trainwreck.

  • 7

    I have never agreed with every word in a review. Though I think a "Roast" is more appropriate for this garbage.

    How could Steven Spielberg ever have allowed himself
    to be associated with such drivel?

    I know it's repetitive, but I strongly think Ryan Seacrest ascension into the Hollywood heights is criminal, and wish he would be replaced.

    If not for the reputations of Burnett and Spielberg you'd know this host got her job on a couch or with knee pads.

    With the hurrah, I truly looked forward to this show, it's already deleted from my Tivo.

    Great job.

  • 8

    Your review was completely on the mark. You managed to include pretty much everything I was thinking about it. However I think you went a little easy on the host. She is horrendous. I found her irritating last night, but tonight in the elimination show, where it was mostly her, I couldn't stand her. I came very close, several times, to changing the channel. Only the fact that I was genuinely interested in seeing who got cut kept me tuned in. I agree with Michael, who did she sleep with to get this job. Her performance also has given me a completely new found respect for Ryan Seacrest. He does a fantastic job that he really doesn't get credit for, and I have never particularly been a Seacrest fan.

    It's actually too bad that they've messed this show up so much. It really has potential. If you look at the auditions (which were in the Project Runway style) they were far more entertaining than what appeared this week. Also, does anyone know why people outside of the US can't vote for this, especially considering this was touted as an international show? Maybe that's why 2 of the 3 kicked off tonight were foreigners.

  • 9

    I totally agree with your comments regarding the host. She's terrible. With the judges (over)emphasizing how important women directors are, you'd think they would try to get a decent female host. She sets us back! I too almost turned off the show because I can't stand her. I haven't made up my mind as to whether I'll watch the next show. It's a pity too -- it's a great concept, but "poorly executed" (isn't that ironic given the subject matter of the show?).

  • 10

    I found this page by googling "Adrianna Costa you guys" for the simple fact that everytime she says it (i.e "you guys") it makes me puke up a bit. She nearly ruined an otherwise perfectly wonderful dinner.

    As others have mentioned this article pretty much hit the nail on the head - although I'm sure I'll continue to watch as it still has some entertainment potential. It would have a lot more potential if they got a different host and went back to a less "American Idol" - like format.

    You gotta hand it to Seacrest - he's a pro with relative grace under pressure and the reason he's good is beacuse you aren't distracted by his presence. Adrianna on the other hand makes me constantly aware of her presence in that she seems very uncomfortable and painfully aware and self conscious of every phrase...(most commonly "you guys"). Will one of the prodcuers PLEASE tell her to stop saying it and to stop doing such weird things with her hands - it's freaking me out.

  • 11

    I agree with you re the host...Adrianna Costa is terrible. Where did Chelsea Handler go? She hosted the first show....she is fabulous and hilarious no matter what she does and she can improvise. Bring her back...if the show doesn't get cancelled this week that is. Also, for being in the business these judges just really are not that good, especially at articulating their comments & criticisms.

  • 12

    I'm so glad "you guys" seem to agree with everything I was thinking. I kept wondering if i was the only one more irritated than entertained by the whole thing. The host--"you guys" covered that. But what about how annoying it is that Carrie Fisher can't seem to spit out a sentence without stammering and stuttering for ten minutes. GRRR...it's a wonder Gary Marshall seems to be in constant astonishment that they let women into this business at all these days!

    it's already deleted from my tivo too! really. :)

Add Your Comment:

You must be logged in to post a comment.
Tuned In Daily E-mail

Get e-mail updates from TIME's Tuned In in your inbox and never miss a day.

Quotes of the Day »

Get & Share
DEBI HEISS, on Ohio's execution of 51-year-old Kenneth Biros; Heiss's sister Tami was a victim of Biros, and the family applauded as the time of death was announced. It was the nation's first execution by a single injection rather than the three-drug process