OT: On the Lot - Fox

p@mast3rs wrote on 8/12/2007, 11:32 AM
Your thoughts? Will this cause an influx of budding film makers or will it make every ordinary Joe think he can direct a film?

edit: didnt I say Sony should something like this a couple years ago in order to get some recognition for Vegas? Seems like the show uses Final Cut exclusively. Between my ideas of acquiring Serious Magic and now this show idea, Sony should really start to listen to me (j.k). Any other ideas I have Ill just give to Apple as apparently they are open to innovation still.

Comments

Coursedesign wrote on 8/12/2007, 12:06 PM
Hard to tell. I think it will inspire many who have it in them, and also give many a tiny inkling of an idea how hard it is to go from an idea to a few seconds that work on film.

I haven't seen much about the participants' behind-the-scenes efforts though, a "making-of" presentation beyond the very brief micro samples provided.

p@mast3rs wrote on 8/12/2007, 12:33 PM
definitely seems to be a lot of talent on the show.
Coursedesign wrote on 8/12/2007, 1:10 PM
The "Yes Men" director (film about about a pencil manufacturer boss showing up at work in a dress) this week showed mega talent. That was 100% professional quality.
TGS wrote on 8/12/2007, 1:18 PM
I'm pretty sure you already think you can direct a film.
p@mast3rs wrote on 8/12/2007, 1:29 PM
Far from ordinary Joe there TGS. If one only knew what others here have done we would all be amazed.
Coursedesign wrote on 8/12/2007, 1:34 PM
I'm pretty sure you already think you can direct a film.

Well, umm, yes.

I have directed both film and theater.

But I don't put one above the other, they are just very different art forms (and it's a frustration sometimes to get stage actors to realize that).

p@mast3rs wrote on 8/12/2007, 1:39 PM
In the first episode when they put three directors together, they had to know it would be train wrecks considering almost all directors love to direct and make the decisions.

One has to think to make it to the Final 18 will be enough to get many of them in the door. Like American Idol, the top three will definitely have deals regardless of who wins.
TGS wrote on 8/12/2007, 3:12 PM
That wasn't directed at you, Coursedesign. Just the statement in the first post
Coursedesign wrote on 8/12/2007, 3:20 PM
Well, that type of self-assured statement can build negative emotions for sure.

The only fly in the ointment here is that he is right.
p@mast3rs wrote on 8/12/2007, 3:23 PM
"That wasn't directed at you, Coursedesign. Just the statement in the first post"

And you think you can?
Coursedesign wrote on 8/12/2007, 4:13 PM
There's been a debate over the last year especially about who is the real filmmaker, the "auteur," as it used to be called.

For a long time, it has been assumed (in this country especially) that the director is the filmmaker/auteur. But that doesn't have to be the case.

Not long ago, the screenwriter was considered to be the filmmaker/auteur, and the director was just a hired hand.

When Spielberg got a contract to direct "Marcus Welby, M.D.," he quickly found out that he was a replaceable peon. All special shot demands he made were all nixed by the D.P. ("if it can't be shot with a one-inch, a two-inch, or a three-inch [lens], it doesn't deserve to be shot"). The D.P. was the person really in charge of the creative side.

Directors at that time were usually thought of as "just implementors of somebody else's vision."

Today, the pendulum has swung a bit too far in the opposite direction. It's as if writers don't matter, and whole movies are created by the director through immaculate conception.

winrockpost wrote on 8/12/2007, 4:25 PM
from some of the films i've seen, ordinary joe would be very refreshing ,
Coursedesign wrote on 8/12/2007, 4:41 PM
He-he, have you been watching Fellini revivals again?

The difficulty is that even if Ordinary Joe has something to say, it may be unbearable sitting through seeing and hearing him trying to convey it, because he doesn't speak the language of film, so he is unable to communicate his interesting thoughts.

I'm all for democratizing "visual communication" (misnomer, because it is more than visual), but it is painful just to read stuff written by poor communicators.

For example, I just got this pearl, written by a well educated (M.A.) professional columnist:
One cannot come into a child's life late in the game, and expect that

Why not? If one comes in late enough, they may very well be parents.

Duh.

[it would have helped to have said, "and expect to be viewed as"

p@mast3rs wrote on 8/12/2007, 4:45 PM
I disgaree. Most ordinary Joes wouldnt understand simple concepts such as audio, angles, or lighting. I think some on the show really try to hard to pack as much as they can into their small time frames instead of focussing on each story.

The episode that Michael bay was on there was a joke. Bay is such an asshole and its not like his work is the holy grail that his arrogance shows. I mean come on, Transformers? Maybe Armageddon was his best work but IMO is was the actors who made that flick, not his direction.

But then again, he did direct that piece of crap called Pearl Harbor. Not too sure I would be so arrogant with that on my resume.
winrockpost wrote on 8/12/2007, 4:58 PM
.......Most ordinary Joes wouldnt understand simple concepts such as audio, angles, or lighting
Thats why we have audio engineers ,directors of photography and lighting designers
I say bring on someone without a vest and lightmeter !! :)
p@mast3rs wrote on 8/12/2007, 5:08 PM
As long as you have good storytellers, its all that matters.
DGates wrote on 8/13/2007, 12:41 AM
This show has been abysmal in the ratings. If Spielberg and Mark Burnett weren't producing it, it would've been canceled long ago.

I don't care who edits with what. If the contestants primarily use FCP, big deal. Who cares?

apit34356 wrote on 8/13/2007, 7:45 AM
"But then again, he did direct that piece of crap called Pearl Harbor. Not too sure I would be so arrogant with that on my resume." well, if had you had that piece of crap on your resume, at least the big studios would be talking to you and you would not be in FL teaching "video" classes and shooting video. Maybe then the network would listen to your ideals, -- well that would be big maybe, because networks seem to like trends more than new ideals.
p@mast3rs wrote on 8/13/2007, 8:39 AM
True but would you rather have a shitty film on your resume or decent films of substance?

Thats the problems with the networks today. They want to finance and broadcast what they want viewers to see, NOT wants viewers want to see. Its simple marketing and not one of those guys seems to know what the hell marketing really is. Instead they force feed their idea of entertainment down the viewer's throats and then wonder why ratings suck.

Im sure FCP wasnt the reasoning for the show but Apple's brilliant marketing probably got them in the door to be the featured NLE. Now heres another FREE marketing tip for Sony even though they dont listen.

Sony could do the same thing but for the internet especially with video being so predominant on the net. Set up a video site and contest similar to the same and require that only Vegas be used as the NLE. Allow the internet to cast the votes. You build brand name and product recognition, you open the door for many of your current users and you attract new users from the shows and clips. And you have a format to pimp all of your products. Make all of the videos viral. last them everywhere. You give some lucky editor/director/cameraman a shot at exposure, increase sales and recognition, and you are doing a service by supplying good directors a future in which Sony will surely make money off of. A minor league system if you will similar to baseball/football/etc...

Will Sony do it? I doubt it. But it will be done and then we can relive this thread again in the future.