Talk:On the Lot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Television  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Early comments[edit]

they are currently interviewing potential contestants all over.. is that notable information?

on the lot is an awesome show.

user with IP deleted major sections of this article as well as all unofficial links. [1] A lookup of this IP address reveals it was FOX itself: [2] Provocal 19:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

user jeffkingla deleted the same sections again. [3] Looking up the name jeffkingla in google, a myspace entry likely identifies him as Jeff King, Vice President / General Manager of FOX Branded Media [4] Provocal 21:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edit [5] ... is it wikipedia's place to offer this kind of analysis or justification for On The Lot's casting decisions, beyond the bare numbers? Provocal 14:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Fox continues to edit the article in order to remove elements concerning their treatment of filmmakers in the early stages. Keep an eye out...

Elimination chart[edit]

So now that the show has begun should someone start an elimination chart on the page like on the American Idol season pages? --Fez2005 05:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

An elimination chart would be nice, once the number of contestants gets down to a more manageable number. -- MisterHand 11:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe the number of contestants now, which is 18, is now "down to a more manageable number." I will try to copy American Idol (season 6)'s elimination chart into this article and edit it to match the sources that I find and I will cite. OK? --luckymustard 13:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, man! I think its fairly obvious with the amount of content showing up on as opposed to television that they expected more out of this Spielberg/Burnett project.

I'll return again to post film summaries after the next show... perhaps an idea for a separate section or subsection?

This is assuming that this show lasts another week...

"Website and Controversy" section[edit]

I have removed (twice now) the highly biased section where all the sources were forum posts and blog entries. This section violated at least three Wikipedia guidelines:

Please do not add the section back in unless they concerns are addressed. -- MisterHand 16:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

RESPONSE- citations provided are evidence to the assertions made in the article. Some films were over the time limit. Citations show clear evidence of such. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

Discovering films that violated the rules and posting them here constitutes original research. However, if you can cite a reliable source (i.e. not a forum or a blog) that note these films, then you can add it in. Follow the links for full details on Wikipedia's policies on this. I have flagged the section as NPOV for now. If these concerns are not addressed, it will be removed again.
Also note that anybody who is somehow involved in this show, whether employed by Fox or who was a participant on the show in any way, should refrain from editing this article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. -- MisterHand 17:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
One more thing: please be civil. Labeling an editor as a "vandal" during a content dispute, as was done here is unhelpful. -- MisterHand 17:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

My two cents: vandalism has occurred [6], although I agree the one quoted above by MisterHand was not an example of it. Is it notable that Jeff King the Vice President of FOX Branded Media has repeatedly and personally censored the wikipedia article that talked about FOX propensity for censorship? [7]. I agree with MisterHand that no one who is employed by FOX or who is a participant should edit this article, and yet deleting this section is exactly what Mr. King wanted for obvious reasons. I believe this is a case for following the spirit of the law rather than the letter of it. The spirit of the laws about notability and no original research is meant to prevent personal opinions and things that are simply not facts from making it into wikipedia. So does anyone here doubt that the claims in the disputed section are facts? And does anyone here feel its not notable that FOX's censorship powers extend beyond and into wikipedia? I agree all personal opinions should be removed, and the section should be cleaned up to sound much more impartial and unbiased, I volunteer to do that. But at the same time, for as long as they're reasonable, relevant facts should be allowed to stand. --Provocal 20:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Notability isn't determined by us as editors, it's determined by coverage in the "outside world" (see WP:NOTE). Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a soapbox, and that's my main concern here. I've looked for media coverage of any of the controversies listed in the article, so that I could rewrite things in a more neutral way -- so far I haven't found anything. AICN has expressed some concerns about the semi-finalists. It's not exactly what I'd call a reliable source, but it could be used to establish notability. -- MisterHand 22:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The "Website and Controversy" section looks full of original research, and contains citations of message board threads, and not reliable sources. See self-published sources.

For example, the first citation used in the section goes to a message board thread, where a user FableForge posts a link to (which is down as of May 24, 2007 and missing from Google cache and and claims James Swirsky got an audition, and then posts a link to iFilm and lists a runtime from iFilm and then assumes that was the runtime of Swirsky's final submission and then says it was too long according to the rules (which are never linked to). That all may be true, but Wikipedia readers should not be expected to verify the claims of a message board user. Rather, reliable, published, secondary sources should be used instead.

I have found this article on that says Swirsky submitted his short film Jannie Bananie Quits Smoking. Okay. But for an editor to make any assumptions and synthesis from iFilm and submission guidelines constitutes original research. Nevermind the fact that the producers may have reserved the right to alter contest rules.

Also, I don't know if links to belong on the page. Is it a news website? A blog? Was it started by rejected contestants? Is it link spam? It appears to be a website full of filmmakers. How is that site related to the show? It looks like it was created by a disaffected forum user upset with forum moderation. Is that notable enough to be mentioned in an encyclopedia?

We need to discuss whether links to topic threads at are reliable sources or not. I feel they are not. I think perhaps one link in external links labeled On the Lot Forums may be acceptable. The way the secton is now, I agree with MisterHand's removal. It needs reliable sources, not links to message boards or blogs. --Pixelface 11:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Update 5/24. Since no attempt has been made to address the concerns raised by Pixelface, myself, and others I have once again removed the section. If notability can be established, and concerns can be worded in a neutral way, we can add some of the information back. -- MisterHand 16:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

At least the heavy censorship part should be kept, especially since there's a very simple way of knowing if they are correct. Try posting on the fox message boards, ask about their censorship or about karmacritic. If the it gets deleted without even an attempt at a response, you'll know it's true.

And just in case you are uninformed regarding Fox's agenda or about how Fair and Balanced Rupert Morduck really is, I suggest you watch Outfoxed before commenting, there's at least one credible witness to Fox's horrific ethics on it.

There is no reason to defend any other Fox owned brand since they obviously adhere to the same standards; the fact that Mr. Jeff King himself deleted the criticism about the censorship twice, without even making an attempt at a valid reason, is proof enough.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 02:26 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Citing's "Outfoxed" doesn't help in an argument concerning credibility...just so you know... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).
There may be censorship taking place at, but I haven't found it reported on any website other than message boards or blogs, so we can't include it in Wikipedia. Wikipedia readers shouldn't have to post on a FOX message board in order to verify a statement in the article. If a secondary source is found (such as an entertainment reporter talking about it in a newspaper article) then the information can be included and cited. I'm not trying to defend FOX, I'm trying to adhere to Wikipedia policies and guidelines: no original research, verifiability, and neutral point of view, as well as reliable sources.
I have some suggestions for those that want to include the section. Find a secondary source that discusses censorship on those message boards. Also, a link to contest rules may be helpful. But if any editor makes any assumptions about the contest rules and possible violations of them and puts it into the article, that counts as original research, and can be removed. If a reliable source discusses it, then the information can be included with a citation. --Pixelface 03:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I know nothing about the censorship involved, but I can state from my personal knowledge having submitted a film and reading the guidelines several times that it WAS stated that films longer than five minutes might be considered, but it was at the filmmaker's own risk to submit anything "too long." There were multiple forum posts about it at the time of submissions. I realize this is a moot point, but the time limit just wasn't a hard and fast rule. 01:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Does apparent conflict of interest negate facts?[edit]

a. some points refer directly to material already available and verifiable. are they not, therefore, valid, all things considered?

b. the official show website is considered a reliable source for material on the show. by corollary, when material on the website is referred to, does it not constitute reliable source? does the definition reliable source restrict its ambit, in this case, to official statements from the registered owners of the website?

c. if that is the case, can the article be restructured to reflect a 'public opinion' section? Reincarnut 19:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

My real problem with the section has less to do with verifiable facts than it does with the tone of the section, which comes off very much as an attack on the show's casting process. A neutral article should describe that process, and let the reader draw their own conclusions. If there is controversy, and it's notable (ie covered by major media), then that can be included as well.
A good example: there was a similar dispute surrounding Jericho (TV series), where a group of individuals have been protesting it's cancellation by sending nuts to the network (long story). While interesting and factual, it wasn't really notable...until the media got a hold of the story and started repeating it. If the same thing happens here, then we can move forward. Until then we need to be cautious about what we include and don't include -- and try to stay neutral. -- MisterHand 22:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

media the idea that we must wait for media coverage to prove the notability and veracity of a known fact is absurd. Are these issues not real and verifiable? Then how can we make any claim against them?- Homer—The preceding unsigned comment was added by HomerS3 (talkcontribs) 00:11 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Notability, yes. Veracity, no. Just because something is factual, doesn't mean it's notable. It's a fact that I stopped by 7-11 on my way to work yesterday. Does that mean it should get an encyclopedia article? -- MisterHand 13:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
if a show about it aired on a major network, yes... - Homer—The preceding unsigned comment was added by HomerS3 (talkcontribs) 23:32 24 May 2007 (UTC)


I added the "response" section. If anybody knows how to add a reference, the ratings are on several pages, but here is one that can be linked to: Badgergrl04

Added second show ratings. Man, will this show last through the summer, or are we gonna have to watch that Survivor Pirate ripoff instead? Boo... Badgergrl04

Now added the fourth episode's ratings. does /6 mean that ratings are improving? In any event, Fox won the night, so perhaps this show has some life left in it.Badgergrl04 22:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ratings continue to plummet... will add update today... Badgergrl04 16:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Reading thru the entire "Ratings" section, I felt that it was a complete waste of space. Do we really need a week by week listing of the shows that On the Lot lost to that week? This entire section can be summarized in a few sentences by saying that it started out with two episodes per week, was reduced to once a week, and continues to underperform. That says it all without having to go into boring details. Any other opinions on this section? --Mtjaws 02:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

This section needs to stay consistent. A share and a rating are not the same, so either have ratings listed for each episode, or shares only, or both.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 17:35 3 August 2007 (UTC)


I forget his name, but the guy who made the 911 burgled film had 1 long hair sticking off his head sideways, I just kept staring at it...... 01:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


Correct me if I'm wrong (maybe I missed an episode?), but did they completely skip showing the results of the 1-page script challenge? I saw what I believe was the end of episode 2 which was about 5 or 10 minutes of the contestants beginning to shoot on the sets, and it appeared as though they would have another episode covering the one-page challenge, but then I tuned in this week and they were already down to 18 and they had already made their first film. Did I miss an ep? TheHYPO 03:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is on as outtakes... This (well meaning) deletion/edit by MisterHand should be undone. The finalists and eliminations are shown, and accurate as of the current show. The page is not blank. Seems like the Outtakes #2,3,4 are the missing pieces. However, as the show is already ahead of these they will probably never be aired. Maybe someone better at this than I can add back what was deleted here? (I'm guessing they had timing issues and just had to cut this section? Might be worth a note on the main page as well...) 05:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You are right, it is only available online.

I added the 18 finalists names, their films and a brief description of the film, information taken from It will probably be easier to have a table once this show takes off.

And if it doesn't, it'll move to the Friday night death slot, be canceled, and we can start a "cancelled" section!

Yes, at the time I made the edit the information could not be validated, but now it's all there so it can be added back in. -- MisterHand 14:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


I think it would be a good idea to start a "reception" section, based off of all the reception this show has received. Did Spielberg's ghost-like appearance effect the show's initial success? Were there one-too-many fart and pee jokes in the comedy shorts? How will viewer voting effect the quality of the show?

There are numerous news articles on ratings, quality of show, possible rip-off from Project Runway, etc. Also, Vote for the Worst has been encouraging voting for Kenny (I added this to VFTW's page).

If nobody feels like starting this, I'll take care of it tonight. I somehow predict that this section will eventually end with "The show was canceled June ??, 2007 due to low ratings and marketability."Badgergrl04

As long as things are well-cited (in other words, we don't mask our own personal opinions with "some fans think...") this should be a good addition. -- MisterHand 20:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Believe me, I am a fan of the show! That's why I'm here seeking (and updating) information. I just have not seen anything (or read anything) to make me believe that this show isn't destined for the same place that "Wedding Bells," "Greed," "Drive" and other Fox shows ended up after poor early performances. Badgergrl04

Added "reception" to article. Included both the positives (very few, yes) and the negatives for added balance. If you see any cool articles out there with quotables, be sure to add them in! It's amazing how negative everyone is about the show, yet they keep talking about it. Badgergrl04 14:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


this aticle on Carrie Fisher implies that every judge we've seen so far is a "guest judge" ("Other guest judges on the show include directors Brett Ratner ("Rush Hour 3"), Garry Marshall ("Georgia Rule") and Jon Avnet ("Risky Business").")

Not sure if this is going to hold true, but perhaps ratner should not be listed seperately in the aritcle as a "guest judge" TheHYPO 21:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Film lists need to go[edit]

I don't WANT them to go, but we really have no choice here; I think the Film list needs to go (but I wanted to discuss it first). It is fine for one week, but even after 3 weeks, it's going to be unwieldy.

I'd keep the general descriptions of the film challenge (one minute comedy shorts) and a brief explaination of the results (after tonight airs), but I'd like to suggest that the list of films be kept in a seperate article (List of On The Lot final films, or something similar) which can be linked to from this article, and keep track of the results from each week (including the prelims if someone wants to type those up). Otherwise, the article is gonna be huge. TheHYPO 21:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Since I'm the one that originally typed it, I'll offer a compromise: The directors that get cut stay up along with a description of the film. That way, people can figure out why they were cut (i.e. fart jokes, vomiting, pee or kiddish humor).

I also like your idea of a separate article. Could the information be transferred? That way, longer descriptions can be included.

If anybody's up for it, it might even be good to have separate director profiles with info taken from the site and the shows, listing films there.

I really want this show to succeed, and with an online area to obtain information, it might generate the necessary interest! I would be willing to type additional info about the beginning rounds. However, I don't want to see the film list go away entirely! Badgergrl04

All you have to do is copy the information from this article and paste it in another article. If there is support for a seperate article, I'll do it. But I wanted to hear people's opinions.
I also think the 50 semi-finalists, while useful information for people watching the prelim episodes, is now bloating the article significantly. But I'll be honest, I was surprised to goto the American Idol season pages and see full lists of each week including the prelim rounds. (making the articles extremely long). If that's the way people want to do it, that's cool, but I thought I'd see if it actually was the way people want to do it. TheHYPO 21:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, TheHYPO. Let's wait and see after 3 weeks. Right now I really don't think the article is too long. My only concern is that a separate page with a list of the films may be nominated for deletion. And I don't think the list of 50 semifinalists is bloating the article. It may be helpful for editors to look at WP:LENGTH. --Pixelface 05:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

After ratings, perhaps the entire show will be nominated for deletion :) Let's see what happens next week. Perhaps Spielberg will put his foot down and demand more quality or more films or something. Badgergrl04 14:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Added in notes on the three elimination films and top 3 films. Badgergrl04 14:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Chart needs revision[edit]

Didn't they mention on the show that three people would be eliminated this week? Wouldn't that make the current elimination chart not work very well? I personally think that this article needs a chart a little more like the American Idol chart in the individual season articles (actually just 4, 5, and 6). Also, the AI charts use the date of ELIMINATION, not the date of the performances like the one in this article does. Mjmclemore, 29 May 2007

Yes. Three will be eliminated. That means three people will be tied for 16th place. My guess (and it's just a guess) is that 3 a week won't be the constant elimination every time. My only issue is that I'm pretty sure they won't list the results of the voting in full, so we won't be able to have a chart that ranks all 18 finalist's in voting. The chart is easily changable if, in coming weeks, the system doesn't work. TheHYPO 23:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. You did put the date of the elimination. I was confused. Mjmclemore, 29 May 2007

Chart looks good, guys! I like the improved colors and the list by last name Badgergrl04 14:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"Bottom 6"?[edit]

Was it made clear that the two people from each group that were singled out to be eliminated (eg: Kenny and Claudia) were collectively the 6 lowest vote-getters? Would it be accurate to list Kenny, Jessica, and Marty as part of the bottom 6 (along with the three eliminated)? TheHYPO 04:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think it was clear. It's possible but I think that would count as speculation or original research. --Pixelface 05:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. We'll see if it's any clearer on the show's site in recaps but it should stay out until then TheHYPO 05:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

They did the same crap with Sanjaya, poking fun at him by making him stay around hanging until the end of the show. It doesn't mean anything--- in fact, when he was down to the bottom 2 on one show, it was revealed that he was actually one of the top four vote receivers. Badgergrl04 14:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I thought it was unlikely that Marty got bottom 3 after being so heavily featured in the preliminary episodes TheHYPO 20:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


I really don't think the list of semi-finalists is encyclopedic or notable. Most of the 32 people eliminated were hardly shown, if at all. This was aggravated by the skip forward over the end of the auditions and the final cut-down. I think we can drop the list, but leave the brief summary explaining their backgrounds and ages. Thoughts? -- MisterHand 14:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Leave it up for a few weeks while its still fresh. If this show does take off (or at least keep improving its market share as it had Tuesday from Monday, yay!) then it can go. I think the most important ones are the ones that receive the TV time, as opposed to the ones that made it to Hollywood. Think of all the hopeful American Idols that once had yellow papers and heard "Welcome to Hollywood!" from the judges. Hundreds every season. How soon they were forgotten while eliminated off-air.
At least the 18 finalists flicks were on the show. How many of the 50 did we actually see for more than a few seconds? Maybe a dozen. Badgergrl04 15:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the list of 50 semi-finalists should stay. It's verifiable and the information comes from a reliable source. From WP:NOTE: The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standard of the notability guidelines. Notability is different than "fame" or "popularity." I don't think each of them is notable enough to have their own separate page, but I think the list fits fine within the context of the article. --Pixelface 19:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know. It seems like indiscriminate information and trivia to me. It's just a list of 50 names with no real context that completely breaks up the flow of the article. -- MisterHand 19:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Week 2 and beyond[edit]

Due to abysmal ratings and lackluster reviews, On the Lot has been degraded to a screening/results show Tuesday loop, with reruns commanding the Monday slot. The "Week 2" section has been updated to reflect this change. Wow, we didn't see this coming. How much you wanna bet that the "Tuesday" show becomes the "Friday night death slot" show after next week's ratings failure?Badgergrl04 16:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It was revealed that filmmakers did not have five days as specified in the show, but rather, these were pre-submitted audition tapes in the last show. Therefore, contestants could (and likely did) have longer than five days to produce and direct them! The "five day" factor was likely recent editing of already-finished products for viewer voting purposes. It is quite obvious that FOX is cutting losses at this point. Entertainment Weekly can be the authority source on this, so I added it to Week 2's entry on the page Badgergrl04 17:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Elim box changes.[edit]

In an effort to clarify that only 5 people are running films each week, I've greyed out the people who didn't air a film each week. I initially made the eliminations red, and then made Gold the people who DID air a film, but decided that since I'd have to make the entire first column gold for the first week (and who knows what's to come after this week), it made more sense to grey out non-competitors each week.

Also, since one person out of five is going each week for three weeks right now, but the other 10 are not at risk, the three people eliminated ought to be seen as "tied", since these three weeks are almost like "heats" (eg: Marty, out this week, did not "advance" further than Trevor - he just got chosen for the second week by random chance rather than the first week. This does't qualify him as placing higher than Trevor. TheHYPO 00:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks great. Nice work! -- MisterHand 14:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Right now I think the elimination chart is confusing. Andrew Hunt didn't screen a film on the June 19 episode, he screened one on the June 12 episode. Will Bigham didn't screen a film on the June 26 episode, he screened one on the June 19 episode. I guess the white cells might make sense if that meant they could be cut that week, but there's no such explanation. Jessica Brillhart DID screen a film on the June 19 episode, yet her box is greyed out.
Also, I think the whole "Week #" naming should be left out of the article. The elimination chart makes it look like June 26 is Week 4, but when the article and the List of On the Lot films article mentions Week 4, it's referring to the June 19 episode, not June 26. I think we should refer to the episodes by episode number, as seen on sites like
I also think the "Place" column in the elimination chart can be removed. I guess it could be assumed that Trever James came in 15th place (or as User:TheHYPO said, tied with Marty and whoever) but is there a reference for that? If there's no citation, the Place column should be removed. The people cut before the others can still be put below the remaining filmmakers though. What does everyone think? --Pixelface 21:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I left the dates how they were. I believe they were intent on the episode of elimination, because originally, the airing and eliminating was two seperate episodes. I still think it was easier to see before who competed against each other, having the greys showing which 5 went up against each other. Tonight Costa said "in the coming weeks" the contestants will be doing horrors, so much guess (just a guess) is that we're going to have another 3 weeks of 4 a week or 2 weeks of 6 or multiple weeks anyway. I think it's helpful to visually show who competed against whom - Marty wasn't eliminated over Zach, for example, because they never went head to head in the final 15. TheHYPO 06:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I like the way it is done now, by rounds, but my only problem is I think there should be some kind of notation as to who went up against who. I was thinking something like this, but I dunno if it works:

Talk:On the Lot/Elimination tables (moved by TheHYPO 11:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC) )

Any thoughts/ideas? -Joltman 11:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I liked how the grey boxes showed who competed against each other during this multi-week round. But I also like the simplicity of the above table with this round in one column. In order to get that "heat" info, might the boxes of the members of the three groups be shaded with three different color? Of course future groupings might make it real complex/confusing with many colors, but it is probably better than the date method used in the above example. Also, any abbreviations and/or colored boxes should be explained in a legend. And the rankings on the left are fine the way they are because that is basically how they are placing in the competition. --Mtjaws 02:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's my implimentation of your idea (which isn't too bad). I included 3 options for a date legend - one at the top of the table (which I admit is somewhat clumsy - but the font could be shrunk if people like it), one a simple single box ("week 1" "week 2" "week 3") below the main table (could be above if people prefer it), and one a running table that notes the date with each color. Let me know if you like the color idea, and if so, which legend you prefer Talk:On the Lot/Elimination tables#TheHYPO

Any thoughts either way? Joltman's style? My style? no indications of who competed against who style? TheHYPO 05:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Semi-Finalists revisited[edit]

I still think the semi-finalists section needs to go. There are two major problems with it:

  1. These individuals are not notable, within the context of the show or otherwise. Most were not shown or mentioned on television. There were earlier objections that they might somehow become notable over time, but that hasn't happened.
  2. The article gives last names for the individuals. But the source does not. We shouldn't be offering up unsourced information on living people.

Any objections to its removal or other comments to add? -- MisterHand 14:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The American Idol pages don't list the 100+ people who make it to Hollywood unless they make it to the television stages. I'd say that by now, a majority of them are forgettable. Let the list go! Badgergrl04 16:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

While I always hate to see data get deleted, most of these people can be removed from the list. As a compromise, I'd like to suggest keeping the names and occupations of the 18 finalists to show the different types of backgrounds they are coming from. The elimination chart has their names again, but having a little industry-related background will help the reader gauge the contestants. -- Mtjaws 18:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The list of semi-finalists has a source, so it's verifiable. I suppose the last names could be removed since they're unsourced. If you don't like the list, we could put the names in a hidden table (by using class="wikitable collapsible collapsed"). The people may not be notable enough to each have their own articles, but their film submissions got them on the show, out of 12,000 others. I suggest the "Final 18" be sectioned off from the rest though. --Pixelface 21:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I should note that American Idol (season 3), and a few other seasons DO list semi-finalists (that article lists 32 of them, but they were all in voting episodes, and separated into groups, each performing). That said, I see no use for the semi-finalists here. "Notable" doesn't mean that they beat out 12,000 other people. 50 out of 12,000 people is about half a percent. We don't have articles for the richest half a percent of the earths population just because they have more money than the other 99.5% of the group, unless they actually have achieved some notability. To me, these semi-finalists have no real notablility - ie: noone would ever look up this article to find the names of semi-finalists (who didn't make it). If there are any semi-finalists who become or are notable in the industry, I don't see why there couldn't simply be a note "Among the 50 semi-finalists were [director of blah], [name]; [director of snuh], [name]... etc." I'd like to see it gone. I see no good reason for it being in the article. TheHYPO 06:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Right now, the consensus seems to be that we remove the list (only one editor disagrees). I'm going to wait for more comments to filter in, but my plan is to replace the list with the details on the 18 finalists only, but allow the blurb about the statistics of the final 50 to remain. Seem reasonable? -- MisterHand 15:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It's done. I think the article flows a lot better now. -- MisterHand 18:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Elim box, show cast?[edit]

First off - if noone has anything AGAINST changing the elim box (noone has commented on it in a few days), I'm going to change it to reflect tonight's episode. If there's an issue, I'm happy to discuss it, but let's not get into a revert war.

Secondly, does anyone think it's worth mentioning how the show seems to have its own pool of acting talent available to the directors, observable since many recur each week (including Patrick Kerr - Noel Shempsky from Frasier, and both James Avery and Tatyana Ali from Fresh Price of Bel Air) - the old woman from the Sperm Bank film tonight was also the "sponsor" in one of the semi-final Out of Time films, among other recurring cast. TheHYPO 02:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I like how you updated the box. However, should the green top 3 from week 1 even have the green at all? It appears they were in their own group (that isn't in the legend). Also, the Round of 18 eliminations might work better in a color different than the same tan used in round of 15. Finally, a short note about the recurring use of the same actors would help explain how they get actors so fast for their movies. --Mtjaws 03:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I trashed the green on the Top3 per your suggestion. I'd rather not goto another color for a few reasons: First, it's actually not very easy to find good HTML colors that come in a light/dark color that are close enough to use for the elimination box. There might be a green, and maybe a pinky purple, but after that, we're going to run into problems, and secondly, the box will look very confetti-like if we go with two new colors. And then potentially two more the next week, and maybe the week after. Is there a particular reason besides that it might be confusing that you don't like the reuse? I added a note about the color coding in the header for that section TheHYPO 03:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Recurring cast[edit]

Looking at the credits on a few episodes, I've come up with a list of some of the recurring actors on the show and which short films I think they have appeared in. Ones I'm unsure of I've italicized:

Actors that have appeared in multiple short films:

  • Bayne Gibby - Organized Crime (organ buyer), Under The Gun (daughter robber), Anklebiters (mom), The Legend of Donkey-Tail Willie, American Hoe (woman)
  • David Burtka (imdb) - Timeout (man who wants the hat), Discovering The Wheels (caveman), Open House? (father?), Worldly Possession (husband), The Losers, Keep Off Grass (gardener), Driving Under The Influence, Army Guy
  • Erin Cahill (imdb) - Out Of Time 1 (woman), Open House (pregnant woman), Spaghetti (woman), Sweet, The Bonus Feature, Bonus Feature Two, Dress For Success
  • Frederick Koehler (imdb) - Ding (gambler), Discovering The Wheels (caveman), The Malibu Myth (guy driving), The Legend of Donkey-Tail Willie (Donkey-Tail Willie), Zero2Sixty, Girl Trouble (Trent), Backseat Driving Test, The Yes Men (Anderson)
  • Greg Collins (imdb) - Road Rage 101 (trucker), The Yes Men (Mr. Stone)
  • Jackie Tohn (imdb) - Smile (woman with cigarette), Discovering The Wheels (cavewoman), The Malibu Myth (woman in car), The Legend of Donkey-Tail Willie (woman with donkey ears), Catch
  • Janet Varney (imdb) - Random Acts of Kindness (kind woman), Die Hardly Working (female officeworker), Eternal Waters (mother), Worldly Possession (wife), The Losers, Keep Off Grass (female superhero), Dress For Success (Janet)
  • Jonathan Chase - The Bonus Feature, Bonus Feature Two
  • Joy Osmanski (imdb) - Timeout (woman shopper), First Sight (friend)
  • Kimberly Aileen Scott (imdb) - Sponsored By, Under The Gun, Open House, Time Upon A Once
  • Kirk Zipfel (imdb) - Out of Time 1, Nerve Endings (intern), First Sight (man with clipboard), Sweet, American Hoe (man), Road Rage 101, The Yes Men
  • Lin Shaye (imdb) - Sponsored By (suicide sponsor), Under The Gun (mother robber), Midnight Snack (makes a snack), Time Upon A Once, Old Home Boyz, Backseat Driving Test, The Yes Men (Marge)
  • Patrick Kerr (imdb) - Random Acts of Kindness (can collector), Die Hardly Working (co-worker shot by arrow), Anklebiters? (detective?), Time Upon A Once, The Losers, Girl Trouble (Patricia), Driving Under The Influence, Oh, Boy. (Jim Corkman)
  • Randall Park (imdb) - Smile (photographer), Die Hardly Working (bow and arrow coworker), Eternal Waters? (burglar?), Worldly Possession? (military delivery guy?), Zero2Sixty, Unplugged (male co-worker), The Move, The Yes Men
  • Reginald VelJohnson (imdb) - Reverse (psychic), Nerve Endings (doctor), Time Upon A Once (neighbor)
  • Rich Pierrelouis - Vinny's Vault (Lenny), Profile (driver), Key Witness, The Move
  • Tatyana Ali (imdb) - Wilted (shop owner), How To Have A Girl (woman), The Malibu Myth (zombie laying on road), First Sight (woman who puts on glasses), Unplugged (female co-worker), Driving Under The Influence (cop), Dress For Success
  • Todd Waring (imdb) - Wilted (palmreader), Dr. In Law (doctor), Spaghetti (cowboy), Catch, Keep Off Grass (male superhero), Backseat Driving Test, Oh, Boy. (Mr. Smith)
  • Travis Wester (imdb) - Call Waiting, How To Have A Girl (man), Profile (cop), Spaghetti (man with cellphone), Key Witness, Girl Trouble (Fitz), The Yes Men (Thompson)

These are actors that have appeared in only one short film as far as I can tell:

  • Christine Barger (as Christine Bargar) (imdb) - Dress For Success (Jenny)
  • David Barrera (imdb) - Organized Crime (organ finder)
  • Christopher Bradley (imdb) - Dress For Success (Mr. Calloway)
  • Richard Carmen (imdb) - Dance With The Devil (crime boss)
  • Oscar Dillon (imdb) - Oh, Boy. (Neighbor)
  • Dan Gauthier (imdb) - Army Guy (Sgt. Joe)
  • Keeshan Giles (imdb) - The Yes Men
  • Jaman Lloyd (imdb) - Danger Zone (safety supervisor)
  • Jerry O'Connell - The Move
  • Lesli Margherita (imdb) - Ding (female boxer)
  • Stuart McLean (imdb) - Army Guy (Demetri)
  • Cara Santana (imdb) - Call Waiting
  • Terry Shusta (imdb) - Lucky Penny (guy who finds lucky penny, Dale)
  • Eric Stonestreet (imdb) - Vinny's Vault (George)
  • Camden Toy (imdb) - First Sight (Baba, the old blind man)
  • Heather Vandeven (imdb) - Army Guy (Candi)
  • Allan Wasserman (imdb) - Old Home Boyz (older Carl)
  • Jamison Yang (imdb) - Dr. In Law

These are actors that have appeared in more than one short film but I am unsure of their names:

  • Guy who gets slapped on the butt in Dress For Success - Die Hardly Working, Dress For Success

This information might best fit on the List of On the Lot films article. It's verifiable by looking at their IMDB photo and watching the short films. Actors are also sometimes shown on the show with their names below. If we include the info in the article, we could probably just include the recurring actors' names and the films, leaving out the roles. Or we could just list the actors. I've already listed some of the short films on the actors' articles. What does everyone think? --Pixelface 23:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


Numerous times during the finale, the host stressed that it was the season finale, not the series finale. Anyone have a source for it's official cancellation?- yoshirox10 I can't find proof its canceled —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone confirm to me that On The Lot was cancelled?. Have looked several sites but have yet to find out the answer. Thanks for your help. riley6566==== —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riley6566 (talkcontribs) 00:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It's been a couple years since the last episode so it's probably safe to say it's cancelled or at the very least on hiatus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Additional selection phase[edit]

There was an additional selection phase (I believe) that consisted of a number of people who were enlisted to make a short film in 7 days, (larger group than the 50 finalists, although the finalists were included in this process) who were then interviewed in person at at least one or two locations for potential inclusion in the show. It was from this process that the final 50 were selected. I'm not sure that is worth mentioning but I thought I bring it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philip.mark.powell (talkcontribs) 23:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)