Author Topic: Idea for big-money celebrity games (Read 2297 times)

Neumms · « **on:** December 19, 2008, 02:06:55 AM »

There's an unsettling feeling that comes when a civilian player risks money on succeeding with a celebrity player with nothing to lose, as on "Million-Dollar Password." Here's a thought--would it work to split the money between the civilian and, say, the celebrity's favorite charity, thus giving the star a stake in the proceedings? Celebrities have played for charities before, but never, as far as I can recall, at the same time as a player playing for himself.

chris319 · « **Reply #1 on:** December 19, 2008, 02:11:18 AM »

I agree with your point about the celebrities but I don't go for your fix. Months ago I suggested having two married couples play with celebs in the main game, and in the end game the couple would play by themselves.

Kevin Prather · « **Reply #2 on:** December 19, 2008, 03:17:39 AM »

[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'204103\' date=\'Dec 18 2008, 11:11 PM\']
I agree with your point about the celebrities but I don't go for your fix. Months ago I suggested having two married couples play with celebs in the main game, and in the end game the couple would play by themselves.
[/quote]
The problem often cited with civilian partners in a game like Password or Pyramid is the issue of personalization. When Joe Blow gives "Neighbor...wife..." to come up with "Lily", that's not engaging television for the audience.

chad1m · « **Reply #3 on:** December 19, 2008, 03:20:34 AM »

[quote name=\'Kevin Prather\' post=\'204109\' date=\'Dec 19 2008, 03:17 AM\']The problem often cited with civilian partners in a game like Password or Pyramid is the issue of personalization. When Joe Blow gives "Neighbor...wife..." to come up with "Lily", that's not engaging television for the audience.[/quote]Right. Just turn to a clip of Junior Partner Pyramid to see that, especially in the Winner's Circle.

chris319 · « **Reply #4 on:** December 19, 2008, 06:43:57 AM »

Quote

The problem often cited with civilian partners in a game like Password or Pyramid is the issue of personalization. When Joe Blow gives "Neighbor...wife..." to come up with "Lily", that's not engaging television for the audience.

Is that worse than a celeb who plays perfunctorily because they don't have a stake in the outcome?

Mike Tennant · « **Reply #5 on:** December 19, 2008, 09:46:28 AM »

[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'204124\' date=\'Dec 19 2008, 06:43 AM\']

Quote

The problem often cited with civilian partners in a game like Password or Pyramid is the issue of personalization. When Joe Blow gives "Neighbor...wife..." to come up with "Lily", that's not engaging television for the audience.

Is that worse than a celeb who plays perfunctorily because they don't have a stake in the outcome?[/quote]Just put random contestants (who will, obviously, split the pot) together instead of couples, and the problem is solved.

Neumms · « **Reply #6 on:** December 19, 2008, 04:53:06 PM »

[quote name=\'Mike Tennant\' post=\'204135\' date=\'Dec 19 2008, 09:46 AM\']
Just put random contestants (who will, obviously, split the pot) together instead of couples, and the problem is solved.
[/quote]

It worked on "You Bet Your Life." I like that idea, especially if they fire up a 5-day-a-week syndicated Password. They've scraped bottom with the celebrities even in prime time.

CarbonCpy · « **Reply #7 on:** December 19, 2008, 06:03:40 PM »

[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'204232\' date=\'Dec 19 2008, 04:53 PM\']
[quote name=\'Mike Tennant\' post=\'204135\' date=\'Dec 19 2008, 09:46 AM\']
Just put random contestants (who will, obviously, split the pot) together instead of couples, and the problem is solved.
[/quote]

It worked on "You Bet Your Life." I like that idea, especially if they fire up a 5-day-a-week syndicated Password. They've scraped bottom with the celebrities even in prime time.
[/quote]

Quoted to concur -- even Go was 80% civilian...

irwinsjournal.com · « **Reply #8 on:** December 22, 2008, 03:23:02 PM »

I think there were celebrities who were genuinely interested in doing well on past game shows, and fortunately some of those were genuinely good players as well.

Whether that extends to the present, well... let's just say (as I have on another thread) that I wish Chad had drawn Betty White.

Joe Mello · « **Reply #9 on:** December 22, 2008, 03:52:10 PM »

[quote name=\'irwinsjournal.com\' post=\'204476\' date=\'Dec 22 2008, 03:23 PM\']
I think there were celebrities who were genuinely interested in doing well on past game shows, and fortunately some of those were genuinely good players as well.

Whether that extends to the present, well... let's just say (as I have on another thread) that I wish Chad had drawn Betty White.[/quote]
Well, aside from Shat, I have no reason to believe that the 3 celebs shown thus far didn't come to play. Talent-wise, I certainly wouldn't mind Chen or Tyler coming off my MDP All-Star bench.

Jay Temple · « **Reply #10 on:** December 24, 2008, 12:20:24 AM »

[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'204477\' date=\'Dec 22 2008, 02:52 PM\']Well, aside from Shat, I have no reason to believe that the 3 celebs shown thus far didn't come to play.[/quote]
"played badly" <> "didn't come to play"

Jay Temple · « **Reply #11 on:** December 24, 2008, 12:30:29 AM »

[quote name=\'Mike Tennant\' post=\'204135\' date=\'Dec 19 2008, 08:46 AM\']Just put random contestants (who will, obviously, split the pot) together instead of couples, and the problem is solved.
[/quote]
For me as a viewer, it creates another problem, if a lesser one. There's something untoward about putting a prize amount in your title that no one will ever win. (Families and couples are different from strangers in this regard.) Now, if you have returning champions, and especially if you split the winning team after each endgame, it doesn't bother me.