The Game Show Forum > The Big Board

This Season's Pryamid

<< < (7/11) > >>

pyrfan:
Chris, I'm also not sick of your "yammering," for the same reason as above. It seems like the producers of the current version are trying so hard to make this version of "Pyramid" different from the previous ones that they have taken out almost every element that made the earlier versions so engrossing. It's so funny that they're trying to add drama and excitement everywhere (note the constantly changing camera shots and the ominous music and turning of the monitors in the winner's circle -- ooooh!) to a game that was already dramatic and exciting.

To me, the new show has a marked sameness to it. Most of Donny's comments during the show (through no fault of his own) have an "insert name here" quality to them. I feel like I'm watching the same show every day. I find it strange that the producers hired someone with as much screen presence, natural enthusiasm, and intelligence as Donny Osmond to host, yet he seems to be so locked into the cue cards. Besides the elements of the game being different, as has been discussed a lot here, the little discussions and comments interspersed throughout the game allowed the viewers to get to know the players -- both celebrities and contestants -- a little better and, therefore, root for them. Nowadays, at the end of the episode, I feel like I don't know anything about any of the players -- except for the website plug or whatever scripted discussion Donny has with the celebs. (Speaking of which, hasn't anyone there noticed that having the celeb interviews during the game itself slows down the players' momentum, which may account for the low-scoring second rounds that we frequently see?)

The biggest gripe I have with the current version, though, is the briefing of the celebs. As I said in my "Hollywood Squares" post a few weeks ago -- and I know I don't speak for everyone here -- the reason I watch celebrity game shows is to see celebrities out of their normal roles and more as themselves. We've talked about the briefing of the celebs on HS before, and while I feel it's excessive in the current version, it's at least understandable because I've always felt that HS was more of a comedy show than an outright game show. With a game like "Pyramid," the briefing is totally unnecessary and, in my opinion, compromises the integrity of the game.

This aspect of the new game seriously inhibits my enjoyment of the show. How am I supposed to get excited about one of my favorite celebrities helping their partner win $10,000 now, knowing full well that the clues they gave may not actually be their clues at all? How is watching "Pyramid" different from watching a sitcom or a drama now? I'm still seeing the performers deliver lines that were fed to them and not seeing their brains and knowledge at work, which is why I would tune in to begin with. Another poster mentioned Debra Jo Rupp and Rosa Blasi as good new celebs. Well, how do we really know that they're good? How much of what the celeb is saying during the game is actually their own thoughts? Do the producers actually have that little faith in the intelligence of the celebrities that they have to prep them so much with the actual game material? Hell, you might as well just have the celebrity coordinators as partners for the contestants. Why go through all the hassle of prepping the celebs at all? Just cut out the middle man.

I realize that things must change and that we could never have "Pyramid" like it used to be, given the 20- or 21-minute time frame of half-hour television these days. But it's the little things, and they all add up. The game lasted for 15 years on TV for a reason. I don't think it would hurt the producers to find out what made it work.


Brendan

clemon79:
[quote name=\'pyrfan\' date=\'Nov 20 2003, 02:51 PM\'] (Speaking of which, hasn't anyone there noticed that having the celeb interviews during the game itself slows down the players' momentum, which may account for the low-scoring second rounds that we frequently see?) [/quote]
 I hadn't, but it's a damned good point. Once again, let's make it about the celebrities, and not the game....


--- Quote ---Another poster mentioned Debra Jo Rupp and Rosa Blasi as good new celebs. Well, how do we really know that they're good?
--- End quote ---

I'm gonna defend Debra Jo by saying that a) she was a contestant on one of the Clark versions (I think I recall her saying that, anyhow), and b) I vividly recall her giving UTTERLY LEGAL AND BRILLIANT clues in the Winner's Circle, clues that would have been legal under Osmond, Clark, Cullen, OR Davidson.


--- Quote ---I realize that things must change and that we could never have "Pyramid" like it used to be, given the 20- or 21-minute time frame of half-hour television these days.
--- End quote ---

That's the kicker, though. Yes, we'll never get the original format and pacing back, but the ESSENCE of the show can still live, and that what's being slaughtered here.

I can live with 6-in-20. Hell, in all honestly, Pyramid to me is about the Winner's Circle. You could put Treasure Hunt's front game up there, as long as I have my Winner's Circle, that's a half-hour of my day they can have. But, between making the audience shut up (to build suspense? You don't think the escalating applause and rumbling as they worked through the first five boxes wasn't suspenseful?) to the judging (WINNERS! MUST HAVE MORE WINNERS! WHO CARES IF THEY"RE WRITING A DAMN NOVEL IN THAT CHAIR!) to TOM CRUISE'S FRIGGIN' DENTIST (sorry, I can't let that go. That one's the absolute tops. Whoever is responsible for letting that one see air should be kicked in the crotch. Repeatedly.)

And ALL OF THAT IS FIXABLE. That all has NOTHING to do with the pacing of the show. They have to budget 60 seconds for the Winner's Circle. Once they've done that, the content of that 60 seconds is totally under their control. They COULD make it great. And throwing me a bone with "well, we'll let them decide whether to give or receive now!" just shows that they either Don't Get It, or Don't Care.

I'm with Matt in that it probably comes closer to Don't Care. Clearly, they are getting the numbers they want, they have found a way to appeal to a lower common denominator, the idiot who is hoping for a camera angle up Jillian Barbarie's skirt in the Circle, they clearly have consciously decided that they don't need me as a viewer.

Steve McClellan:
[quote name=\'pyrfan\' date=\'Nov 20 2003, 01:51 PM\']hasn't anyone there noticed that having the celeb interviews during the game itself slows down the players' momentum, which may account for the low-scoring second rounds that we frequently see?[/quote]
Not to mention the fact that every time you see an interview during the game like that, they actually are shooting *two* of them right in a row and editing the one they don't like. Add this to all of the other assorted stoppages (judging, technical malfunctions, etc.), and there's definitely no way anyone's gonna get any momentum worked up. (This does, however, mean that the better player is at an advantage, which helps matters a bit.)


--- Quote ---How am I supposed to get excited about one of my favorite celebrities helping their partner win $10,000 now, knowing full well that the clues they gave may not actually be their clues at all?
--- End quote ---
The clues are indeed their clues, but they have (presumably) as much time as they want before the WC to concoct them. So, they may not be spontaneous, but at least it isn't scripted by the show.

Brakus:
-- I must admit that the background music they've added to the main game and end game is kinda of "Millionaire"-ish to me. Combined with the set that the late Randy Amasia once described as "leftovers from the Greed set" and "a set straight out of a rave", it certainly gives the show more of a contemporary feel than the prior two versions did, chasing lights and all.

-- The camera cutaways they do during the Winners' Circle this season are a lot more erratic than they were last season, even much more so than when Dick Clark hosted the show. I guess now that they have the "X to win" graphic on the screen now, they don't need to go to the wide shot of the Pyramid every time a subject is correctly guessed or passed. In Season 1, I liked the one-shot of the celebrity and the contestant, and then back to the more familiar 2-shot, then a shot of the Pyramid, and so on. IMO it gives the viewers a little more insight as to how the contestant sees the person across from them as they were giving clues.

For example, here's what happened on my show with THINGS THAT BURST:

[Shot on Picabo, then on me]
Picabo: An appendix.
Me: Things you take out.
Picabo: A balloon.

[2-shot]
Me: Things that pop. Things that explode.

[Switch to Picabo, nodding her head, then back to me]
Me: Things that explode, things that burst. *ding*

Let the record show that I really dislike the way they handle the Winners' Circle this year as compared to last year. At least the shots were much more static than this year.

-- As someone mentioned before, the show does two interviews with the celebrity and keeps the better one for the tape. Also, the players are asked about a specific thing in their life that the viewer might find interesting. Most of the time, the contestants have such normal, mundane lives that they find it hard to find something good to talk about. Even the other people that were playing on my tape date were kind of wondering what thing they want to talk about that might sound interesting. Luckily for me, I came up with the plug for DDR and the fact that I lost some weight while playing it, and came up with a good description of the game (as compared to the J! contestant not too long ago that really didn't do a good job plugging the game). I did that primarily to connect with all the folks in Southern California that know of and/or play DDR, and of course to connect with the DDR community where I live.

[to be continued because this board has a stupid limit on how long these posts can be]

Brakus:
-- You must consider that Pyramid had been off the airwaves (not counting GSN of course) since 1992, and unlike most of us manaiacal game show otaku, much of the general public -- as well as the celebrities themselves -- may have forgotten what Pyramid was all about. Whenever I'm with people and they bring up that I was on a game show and I tell them I was on Pyramid, most of them have to ask me, "What's Pyramid?" And I need to give them a 10-second description of the game to them. "It's that word game that was hosted by Dick Clark a long time ago, it's now by Donny Osmond, it's on every morning at 10 on Channel 3." The fact that they let the celebrities give all season 1 and most of season 2 is an advantage to the contestants because of the briefings the celebrities give them, most of whom have not seen Pyramid since it went off the air in 1992. As far as I understood it when I was there, they briefed them on what things might come up in the Winners' Circle, and they were told how to give good, legal clues for such categories. I think it's a good thing because if they let these celebrities go blind  giving clues in the Winners' Circle when they haven't watched the show in 10 years, there would be much less money given away every day.

Again, it's all just my opinion, however jaded it may be considering that I was chosen to appear on the show and all, but still, if it bothers you that much, then just don't watch. Let the rest of the public judge for themselves if it's a good show or not; considering it's in Season 2 and doing admirably in the ratings, I think most of them have approved of this new version.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page