The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: DoorNumberFour on December 19, 2008, 01:39:16 PM
-
http://www.startribune.com/entertainment/t...UnciatkEP7DhUsr (http://\"http://www.startribune.com/entertainment/tv/36375364.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUnciatkEP7DhUsr\")
-
Posted one commenter:
Seriously
Web sites for game shows??!! Put down the chips, cookies, bon-bons whatever, hoist your a$$ off the couch and GET A LIFE !!
Next thing you know there will be web sites for wrestling and soap operas.
-
In the interview, Kneiss said he added up the items on his own and got no help from shouts coming from the audience.
And now the story has *two* douchebags involved. Or a douchebag and a liar. Pick one.
-
Let us see in due course if this gentleman continues to protest too much.
I suspect he will in the interest of prolonging his fifteen minutes of fame.
-
Kind of like how some college athletes do all their course work "on their own".
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'204199\' date=\'Dec 19 2008, 11:45 AM\']
And now the story has *two* douchebags involved. Or a douchebag and a liar. Pick one.
[/quote]
Damn, it's like a confusing game of 'Switch'. I really think Ted is the Douchebag, and Terry is the Lair. I will not Switch. ;)
-
[quote name=\'Hastin\' post=\'204207\' date=\'Dec 19 2008, 03:03 PM\']
I really think Ted is the Douchebag, and Terry is the Lair.
[/quote]
No, Studio 33 is the Lair. Or The Carol Burnett Studio, if you will.
-
Hmmmm...Ted the Douchebag, Terry the Lair, where's Joe the Plumber?
-
[quote name=\'gamed121683\' post=\'204211\' date=\'Dec 19 2008, 12:12 PM\']
where's Joe the Plumber?[/quote]
Sadly, on his book tour (http://\"http://www.amazon.com/Joe-Plumber-Fighting-American-Dream/dp/0976974037/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1229719861&sr=8-1\").
-
Yeah, he did it on his own and has a hearing problem. Right, and William Shatner's the best celeb player on Million Dollar Password.
-
I wonder if anyone has brought to Terry's attention the fact that the version of the episode uploaded at cbs.com doesn't have that convenient little Drew zoom-in right at the moment where he's looking out into the audience and mouthing numbers to himself.
What an ass.
-
[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' post=\'204238\' date=\'Dec 19 2008, 05:14 PM\']
I wonder if anyone has brought to Terry's attention the fact that the version of the episode uploaded at cbs.com doesn't have that convenient little Drew zoom-in right at the moment where he's looking out into the audience and mouthing numbers to himself.
What an ass.
[/quote]
I had to feel sorry for the other contestant, though.
Brian
-
[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' post=\'204238\' date=\'Dec 19 2008, 02:14 PM\']
I wonder if anyone has brought to Terry's attention the fact that the version of the episode uploaded at cbs.com doesn't have that convenient little Drew zoom-in right at the moment where he's looking out into the audience and mouthing numbers to himself.
What an ass.
[/quote]
Strange cutting on that showcase:
(SINGLE OF SHARON ON CAMERA 2) I'm gonna go ahead and pass.
(THREE SHOT ON CAMERA 1) Terry, what do you bid for all that?
(SINGLE OF TERRY ON CAMERA 2) Terry looks at audience.
(TWO SHOT OF DREW AND SHARON ON CAMERA 1 -- TERRY IS FRAMED OUT) If it would have been an 18-foot trailer she might have bid on it.
(SINGLE OF TERRY ON CAMERA 1) Twenty three thousand seven hundred forty three.
(THREE SHOT ON CAMERA 1)
My opinion: they digitally enlarged the three-shot on camera 1 to frame out Terry getting his bid from the audience when Drew says "If it would have been an 18-foot trailer she might have bid on it". IMO there was definitely some work done in post. Terry did something they didn't want us to see.
-
For anyone who only saw the TV version and wants to compare:
The episode at CBS.com (http://\"http://www.cbs.com/daytime/the_price_is_right/video/video.php?cid=559221502&pid=GCKrx3reuH_lR1I4c_o5w_KcypsjY8p_&category=popular&play=true\")
Jump ahead to about 33:20 (you'll have to wait out a couple of ads).
-
Asterisk, anyone?
-
[quote name=\'bandit_bobby\' post=\'204253\' date=\'Dec 19 2008, 06:13 PM\']
Asterisk, anyone?
[/quote]
No. Many others have gotten excellent bids from TPiR PhDs in the audience. This is just the first one to nail it right in the (CRASH!) bullseye.
-
[quote name=\'bandit_bobby\' post=\'204253\' date=\'Dec 19 2008, 06:13 PM\']
Asterisk, anyone?
[/quote]
No...an asterisk would apply to the two D/ND winners because they won thanks to that insipid Million Dollar Mission.
Techincally, there weren't any special circumstances applying to this win.
-
Here's the absolute dumbest comment out of all of them.
why does he get both showcases....
that's not fair, where is the out rage....he doesn't deserve both, where is Obama, let's tax the hell outta this guy so he can't take both, no fair, I want my share.....
Using this to make a political statement...not too bright.
-
I hate to say it, but I believe this particular episode is going to mark the beginning of the end of The Price Is Right. First off, you can almost count on a justice department investigation on the showcase. I mean, NO ONE just pulls out $23,743 out of thin air and have it be the EXACT retail price, no matter what anyone says. If I was the other showcase contestant, I would be screaming bloody murder for having been defrauded out of a $30,000-plus showcase. I predict a full-scale investigation on the show is going to launch very soon. Something fishy had to have been going on. As for Drew's lackluster performance on the moment, shenanigans or no, as much as a good guy he is, that tells me he is unfit to host The Price Is Right. I'm afraid to say both of those factors could possibly spell doom for the show.
Of course, I hope I'm dead wrong, but unfortuately, that's what I think is going to go down.
-
[quote name=\'AZAndrewG\' post=\'204321\' date=\'Dec 20 2008, 05:17 PM\']I predict a full-scale investigation on the show is going to launch very soon.[/quote]
LOL! Care to make a side bet on that?
-
[quote name=\'AZAndrewG\' post=\'204321\' date=\'Dec 20 2008, 02:17 PM\']
First off, you can almost count on a justice department investigation on the showcase.
...
I predict a full-scale investigation on the show is going to launch very soon.[/quote]
You have absolutely not one friggin' clue as to what you are talking about.
-
[quote name=\'AZAndrewG\' post=\'204321\' date=\'Dec 20 2008, 05:17 PM\']
Of course, I hope I'm dead wrong, but unfortuately, that's what I think is going to go down.
[/quote]
Yes, you're dead wrong. The Justice Department has a few things that are more important than TPiR.
But you wouldn't be the first game show fan to lose perspective.
-
[quote name=\'AZAndrewG\' post=\'204321\' date=\'Dec 20 2008, 05:17 PM\']
I hate to say it, but I believe this particular episode is going to mark the beginning of the end of The Price Is Right. First off, you can almost count on a justice department investigation on the showcase. I mean, NO ONE just pulls out $23,743 out of thin air and have it be the EXACT retail price, no matter what anyone says. If I was the other showcase contestant, I would be screaming bloody murder for having been defrauded out of a $30,000-plus showcase. I predict a full-scale investigation on the show is going to launch very soon. Something fishy had to have been going on. As for Drew's lackluster performance on the moment, shenanigans or no, as much as a good guy he is, that tells me he is unfit to host The Price Is Right. I'm afraid to say both of those factors could possibly spell doom for the show.
Of course, I hope I'm dead wrong, but unfortuately, that's what I think is going to go down.
[/quote]
Are we talking the likes of Stempel/Van Doren and 21?
-
[quote name=\'inturnaround\' post=\'204324\' date=\'Dec 20 2008, 05:54 PM\']
[quote name=\'AZAndrewG\' post=\'204321\' date=\'Dec 20 2008, 05:17 PM\']
Of course, I hope I'm dead wrong, but unfortuately, that's what I think is going to go down.
[/quote]
Yes, you're dead wrong. The Justice Department has a few things that are more important than TPiR.
But you wouldn't be the first game show fan to lose perspective.
[/quote]
But if there WAS cheating going on, that means someone got screwed out of a $30,000 showcase. That, in my opinion, calls for an investigation. The quiz show scandals of 1959 led to a law making rigging a game show illegal, with violators subject to severe penalties. All I'm saying is that the contestant, his friend, CBS and producers of TPIR have some explaining to do to, at the very least, cover their asses.
I mean, think about it -- what are the odds of randomly calling out a bid of $23,743 and having it be right on the nose? I think the odds of being struck by lightning are greater.
-
[quote name=\'AZAndrewG\' post=\'204331\' date=\'Dec 20 2008, 03:37 PM\']
The quiz show scandals of 1959 led to a law making rigging a game show illegal, with violators subject to severe penalties. All I'm saying is that the contestant, his friend, CBS and producers of TPIR have some explaining to do to, at the very least, cover their asses.
I mean, think about it -- what are the odds of randomly calling out a bid of $23,743 and having it be right on the nose? I think the odds of being struck by lightning are greater.[/quote]You're confusing controlling the outcome by the hand of the producer and the contestant cheating by whatever means he chooses.
The two are not the same, and the fact that you cannot tell the difference between the two incredibly hurts your case.
-
First of all, not one entity involved has suggested the idea that the bid was made randomly. The contestant said he knew the prices, the audience guy said he knew the prices, and TPIR and CBS have not said anything.
Second, considering the taping stopdown that happened, along with the video edits and (what I assume was) an airing delay, I feel pretty strongly that TPIR and CBS have already thoroughly hashed out whether this could land them in any trouble . . . and if their lawyers had so much as blinked, we wouldn't be discussing this now because the show wouldn't have aired.
-
[quote name=\'AZAndrewG\' post=\'204321\' date=\'Dec 20 2008, 02:17 PM\']
First off, you can almost count on a justice department investigation on the showcase.
...
I predict a full-scale investigation on the show is going to launch very soon.[/quote]You have got to be kidding me.
I mean, think about it -- what are the odds of randomly calling out a bid of $23,743 and having it be right on the nose? I think the odds of being struck by lightning are greater.
I didn't find exact odds on lightning, but the worst odds (you getting hit) I saw were 1 in 280,000. Assuming you're not an idiot, you would assume the Showcase is less than $100,000. Ergo, a 1 in 100,000 chance of nailing the Showcase exactly (and the odds are really better than that). Better odds to nail a showcase than get nailed by lightning.
/You lose.
//I'll get a "wow".
-
[quote name=\'AZAndrewG\' post=\'204331\' date=\'Dec 20 2008, 03:37 PM\']
But if there WAS cheating going on, that means someone got screwed out of a $30,000 showcase.[/quote]
You have not one shred of evidence to defend your suggestion of cheating. Not one. We have SEEN some of the more ardent fans of the show. We KNOW it is absolutely possible that some of them stay in their parent's basement, hunched over their KFC Famous Bowl (I wonder how Zach's doing, anyhow?), long enough to memorize this information.
And let me throw one more point at you that, while I doubt it will get you to give up on this utterly idiotic notion, sure ought to: If there WAS some kind of impropriety going on (and there ISN'T, but stay with me here), what kind of abject MORON would get it exactly right, knowing the publicity that that would bring to their scam? If they were truly being sneaky (and, for the third time, they AREN'T), they'd miss it by $50 or so.
[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'204337\' date=\'Dec 20 2008, 04:14 PM\']
[quote name=\'NOT clemon79\' post=\'204323\' date=\'Dec 20 2008, 05:37 PM\']
First off, you can almost count on a justice department investigation on the showcase.
...
I predict a full-scale investigation on the show is going to launch very soon.[/quote]You have got to be kidding me.[/quote]
I'll thank you not to attribute that quote to me.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'204339\' date=\'Dec 20 2008, 07:25 PM\']
I'll thank you not to attribute that quote to me.
[/quote]
Yeah, I'm an idiot. You had snipped that quote perfectly, and snipped the wrong lead quote tag. Fixed in the original post.
-
[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'204337\' date=\'Dec 20 2008, 07:14 PM\']I didn't find exact odds on lightning, but the worst odds (you getting hit) I saw were 1 in 280,000. Assuming you're not an idiot, you would assume the Showcase is less than $100,000. Ergo, a 1 in 100,000 chance of nailing the Showcase exactly (and the odds are really better than that). Better odds to nail a showcase than get nailed by lightning.[/quote]
You know, for all the (quite justifiable) shots that will be taken at our latest conspiracy theorist, coming up with a proof that, in fact, his statement about being struck by lightning is verifiably false is one I wasn't expecting. Well done!
[quote name=\'rwalker\' post=\'204327\' date=\'Dec 20 2008, 06:20 PM\']Are we talking the likes of Stempel/Van Doren and 21?[/quote]
Let's be clear. "We" aren't. Only "he" is.
-
I propose a "Tournament of Champions" at the end of the season and see if he can do it again.
You still have to win the Showdown to get in the Showcase, so that took some skill.
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'204349\' date=\'Dec 20 2008, 09:59 PM\']
I propose a "Tournament of Champions" at the end of the season and see if he can do it again.
You still have to win the Showdown to get in the Showcase, so that took some skill.
[/quote]
Don't give them any bright ideas, they are gonna try the "Couples" for the Valentine's Day show
/2-14 is on a Saturday
//Perhaps it'll be a primetime special.
///Maybe for a million?
-
[quote name=\'inturnaround\' post=\'204324\' date=\'Dec 20 2008, 04:54 PM\']
[quote name=\'AZAndrewG\' post=\'204321\' date=\'Dec 20 2008, 05:17 PM\']
Of course, I hope I'm dead wrong, but unfortuately, that's what I think is going to go down.
[/quote]
Yes, you're dead wrong. The Justice Department has a few things that are more important than TPiR.[/quote]
I would have thought they had "a few things that are more important than" 21.
-
Re: JDept. There was no wrongdoing on the part of the show, so who would the action be against?
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'204371\' date=\'Dec 21 2008, 10:17 AM\']
Re: JDept. There was no wrongdoing on the part of the show, so who would the action be against?
[/quote]
Bob Barker......for old times' sake.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'204247\' date=\'Dec 19 2008, 05:58 PM\']
(TWO SHOT OF DREW AND SHARON ON CAMERA 1 -- TERRY IS FRAMED OUT) If it would have been an 18-foot trailer she might have bid on it.[/quote]
Oh, very clearly on the broadcast side of things they did everything possible to remove Ted Slauson from the broadcast. I would venture a guess that anything that did not involve an audience -- perhaps including the above exchange -- was reshot, mainly to avoid the camera fixating on Ted. And they hadda make sure that Terry was well out of the studio for that to happen. Especially when Terry won his one bid and they showed Drew flicking the price tag away, so the TV viewers would not see the contact between Terry and Ted.
But it begs the question: why was nothing in the online presentation of the show altered? Seems very strange to me that they wouldn't after taking such pains to disassociate Ted with any success anyone had on the episode.
-
Ahh....so they cut off their Slauson.
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'204375\' date=\'Dec 21 2008, 12:00 PM\']
Ahh....so they cut off their Slauson.
[/quote]
Wants to give you a gold star (http://\"http://powerlineblog.com/media/archives/artfern.jpg\").
-
[quote name=\'Robair\' post=\'204374\' date=\'Dec 21 2008, 11:39 AM\']But it begs the question: why was nothing in the online presentation of the show altered? Seems very strange to me that they wouldn't after taking such pains to disassociate Ted with any success anyone had on the episode.[/quote]
The thing is, I think some of the edits did make it into the online version. That's the only one I watched, and I definitely saw something weird several times while they were panning across Contestant's Row to get bids. My guess would be that they made another pass right before airing to include more edits, and someone just forgot to tell the uploaders about it.
-
[quote name=\'Don Howard\' post=\'204373\' date=\'Dec 21 2008, 11:27 AM\']
Bob Barker......for old times' sake.
[/quote]
When in doubt, sue Bob Barker. Don't expect to always win, though.
-
[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'204337\' date=\'Dec 20 2008, 07:14 PM\']
I didn't find exact odds on lightning, but the worst odds (you getting hit) I saw were 1 in 280,000. Assuming you're not an idiot, you would assume the Showcase is less than $100,000. Ergo, a 1 in 100,000 chance of nailing the Showcase exactly (and the odds are really better than that). Better odds to nail a showcase than get nailed by lightning.[/quote]
Well, I did find official NOAA odds.
Odds of being struck by lightning in a given year (reported deaths + injuries): 1/700,000
Odds of being struck by lightning in a given year (estimated total deaths + injuries): 1/400,000
Odds of being struck in your lifetime (Est. 80 years): 1/5000
Take that as you will.
/The facts never lie.
-
[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'204379\' date=\'Dec 21 2008, 10:34 AM\']
Odds of being struck by lightning in a given year (reported deaths + injuries): 1/700,000
Odds of being struck by lightning in a given year (estimated total deaths + injuries): 1/400,000
Odds of being struck in your lifetime (Est. 80 years): 1/5000[/quote]
Seems there would be a more scientific way to estimate this: I'd have to think it would be possible to determine the total surface area that would be affected by a lightning strike (for example, if you're standing two feet away from a lightning strike, you're probably going to be affected by it. Twenty feet, maybe not.) and then divide the total surface area of the Earth suceptible to lightning strikes into that number. I would *think* that would give you the approximate odds of being hit by any given lightning strike.
(We're snowed in. These are the things I think about.)
-
I feel pretty strongly that TPIR and CBS have already thoroughly hashed out whether this could land them in any trouble . . . and if their lawyers had so much as blinked, we wouldn't be discussing this now because the show wouldn't have aired.
Had the show not aired, CBS would be under no obligation to award any prizes to any contestant and there would be no possibility of quiz-rigging charges.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'204382\' date=\'Dec 21 2008, 02:14 PM\']Had the show not aired, CBS would be under no obligation to award any prizes to any contestant and there would be no possibility of quiz-rigging charges.[/quote]Yeah, but I can just see either Terry or Ted going to the press about that and raising a huge stink.
-
I can just see either Terry or Ted going to the press about that and raising a huge stink.
That could easily backfire on them:
"Two guys colluded on TPIR and CBS has decided not to air the episode in question due to legal concerns. Contestant Terry complains that CBS has refused to award him his ill-gotten gains. A CBS spokesperson has stated that the contestant release Terry signed says CBS is under no obligation to award prizes to any contestant if their episode does not air."
So much for raising a big stink.
-
No doubt if the show was withdrawn from air due to collusion, the other 5 contestants and the three "contestants not appearing on stage" would have choice words for Terry and Ted as well.
I wonder if CBS could bill the door prize winners for their prizes if that episode never aired?
-
Well, I think if CBS were to not air the show, the other contestants could receive their prizes anyway.
There have been occasions on other shows (CBS Card Sharks comes to mind) where a contestant had been ruled ineligible and a disclaimer added in post to announce that prizes to that contestant would not be awarded.
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'204468\' date=\'Dec 22 2008, 10:03 AM\']
There have been occasions on other shows (CBS Card Sharks comes to mind) where a contestant had been ruled ineligible and a disclaimer added in post to announce that prizes to that contestant would not be awarded.
[/quote]
This happened on TPiR not too long ago. That guy also raised a stink.
-
[quote name=\'Kevin Prather\' post=\'204479\' date=\'Dec 22 2008, 01:42 PM\']
This happened on TPiR not too long ago. That guy also raised a stink.[/quote]
And the show's still on, so said stink must not have had much of an effect. :)
-
[quote name=\'Kevin Prather\' post=\'204479\' date=\'Dec 22 2008, 04:42 PM\']
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'204468\' date=\'Dec 22 2008, 10:03 AM\']
There have been occasions on other shows (CBS Card Sharks comes to mind) where a contestant had been ruled ineligible and a disclaimer added in post to announce that prizes to that contestant would not be awarded.
[/quote]
This happened on TPiR not too long ago. That guy also raised a stink.
[/quote]
Wasn't that the guy who was mad because he did not know that if you worked at CBS Affiliate, you are ineligible to be on a CBS Game/Reality show?
-
[quote name=\'xavier45\' post=\'204482\' date=\'Dec 22 2008, 06:38 PM\']Wasn't that the guy who was mad because he did not know that if you worked at CBS Affiliate, you are ineligible to be on a CBS Game/Reality show?[/quote]Believe so.
-
[quote name=\'chad1m\' post=\'204483\' date=\'Dec 22 2008, 06:41 PM\']
[quote name=\'xavier45\' post=\'204482\' date=\'Dec 22 2008, 06:38 PM\']Wasn't that the guy who was mad because he did not know that if you worked at CBS Affiliate, you are ineligible to be on a CBS Game/Reality show?[/quote]Believe so.
[/quote]
Can relate. (http://\"http://www.aolcdn.com/aolr/red-cares-donovan-mcnabb-400a120706.jpg\")
-
I just wonder if Ted relizes how big of a bullseye he has painted on his chest? He seriously needs to find other hobbies. That's just absolutely neurotic to even be doing what he did. I'm sure he's a nice guy, but you just don't do that. He probably got that whole golden-road board banned from the show now.
I think of it like being at the blackjack table. You're counting the cards that are coming out of the shoe to have the advantage in your favor. However if you get caught, you will be asked to leave.
Price is probably going to think twice now, before offering repeat prizes.
-
[quote name=\'dazztardly\' post=\'204486\' date=\'Dec 22 2008, 06:59 PM\']
Price is probably going to think twice now, before offering repeat prizes.
[/quote]
Which is really all this should boil down to.
-
[quote name=\'TroubadourNando\' post=\'204492\' date=\'Dec 22 2008, 08:14 PM\']
[quote name=\'dazztardly\' post=\'204486\' date=\'Dec 22 2008, 06:59 PM\']
Price is probably going to think twice now, before offering repeat prizes.
[/quote]
Which is really all this should boil down to.
[/quote]
Yeah.
Except they won't.
-
[quote name=\'dazztardly\' post=\'204486\' date=\'Dec 22 2008, 03:59 PM\']
He probably got that whole golden-road board banned from the show now.[/quote]
Well, here's to hoping.
-
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'204484\' date=\'Dec 22 2008, 06:45 PM\']
[quote name=\'chad1m\' post=\'204483\' date=\'Dec 22 2008, 06:41 PM\']
[quote name=\'xavier45\' post=\'204482\' date=\'Dec 22 2008, 06:38 PM\']Wasn't that the guy who was mad because he did not know that if you worked at CBS Affiliate, you are ineligible to be on a CBS Game/Reality show?[/quote]Believe so.
[/quote]
Can relate. (http://\"http://www.aolcdn.com/aolr/red-cares-donovan-mcnabb-400a120706.jpg\")
[/quote]
I lol'd.
But, I can't believe he didn't know something like that (the contestant, not McNabb). I dunno, maybe it's just my TV side showing, but I would think he's at least seen a contest rulesheet somewhere and read fine print. Not necessarily from his affiliate, but any type of entry.
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'204496\' date=\'Dec 22 2008, 09:03 PM\']
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'204484\' date=\'Dec 22 2008, 06:45 PM\']
[quote name=\'chad1m\' post=\'204483\' date=\'Dec 22 2008, 06:41 PM\']
[quote name=\'xavier45\' post=\'204482\' date=\'Dec 22 2008, 06:38 PM\']Wasn't that the guy who was mad because he did not know that if you worked at CBS Affiliate, you are ineligible to be on a CBS Game/Reality show?[/quote]Believe so.
[/quote]
Can relate. (http://\"http://www.aolcdn.com/aolr/red-cares-donovan-mcnabb-400a120706.jpg\")
[/quote]
I lol'd.
But, I can't believe he didn't know something like that (the contestant, not McNabb). I dunno, maybe it's just my TV side showing, but I would think he's at least seen a contest rulesheet somewhere and read fine print. Not necessarily from his affiliate, but any type of entry.
[/quote]
I don't think you can excuse it in either case, though.
In Mr. Ineligible's case, you're right- all he needed to do was read a contest entry form. In McNabb's case, all he has to do is look at the standings page- there's one extra column in the win-loss record tally for a reason, you know...
(Hey, if it got a chuckle...)
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'204495\' date=\'Dec 22 2008, 08:44 PM\']
[quote name=\'dazztardly\' post=\'204486\' date=\'Dec 22 2008, 03:59 PM\']
He probably got that whole golden-road board banned from the show now.[/quote]
Well, here's to hoping.
[/quote]
That comes off as a little much. Are you suggesting every member there happens to be a walking price encyclopedia like Ted and whoever the other guy was? I can guarantee you that isn't the case. I know, what, maybe two prices---the Campbell's Soup and the Danby wine cooler, the latter only because we have a running joke here of always bidding $999 on everything.
Trust me when I say Ted is a much more isolated case than you think.
-
[quote name=\'TroubadourNando\' post=\'204501\' date=\'Dec 22 2008, 07:30 PM\']
That comes off as a little much. Are you suggesting every member there happens to be a walking price encyclopedia like Ted and whoever the other guy was?[/quote]
Not in the least.
-
The first thing Ted had to do while in line was to let anyone who would listen know that he had memorized all of the prices and was the go-to guy for pricing advice. Henceforth, if the pages overhear that kind of talk, I doubt the person will see the inside of the grand and glorious Bob Barker studio.
Here is the letter of the law:
§ 509. Prohibited practices in contests of knowledge, skill, or chance
(a) Influencing, prearranging, or predetermining outcome
It shall be unlawful for any person, with intent to deceive the listening or viewing public[/b]
Terry and Ted never intended to deceive anyone. They took no steps to conceal what they were doing.
Here is the whole law:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usc...09----000-.html (http://\"http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000509----000-.html\")
-
How's about this for a suggestion? I don't know how well it would work, but if you're trying to eliminate direct audience help in the showcase, why not put the podiums in front of Contestant's Row? That way, if the rules are altered to include such an idea, the contestants can't look back and get direct help but they still have a good look of all of their potential prizes.
-
It would interfere greatly with the shooting of the showcases.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'204519\' date=\'Dec 23 2008, 12:59 AM\']
It would interfere greatly with the shooting of the showcases.
[/quote]
Especially if you're trying to shoot doors #1 & #2. You might get away with it for #3. It could also get worse if you try to shoot a shot of the turntable because Drew might be in the way sometimes. Having the podiums right where they are is the best way to shoot the showcases without camera interference.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'204519\' date=\'Dec 23 2008, 12:59 AM\']
[Moving the Showcase Podiums in front of Contestant's Row] would interfere greatly with the shooting of the showcases.
[/quote]
Hm...doesn't explain why they've done rehearsals trying to figure out how to do just that. ;)
-
[quote name=\'ClockGameJohn\' post=\'204559\' date=\'Dec 23 2008, 09:37 PM\']Hm...doesn't explain why they've done rehearsals trying to figure out how to do just that. ;)[/quote]
Oh, yes, that makes perfect sense...it just didn't work well enough on the Turntable for the first more than 7,000 shows....
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'204561\' date=\'Dec 23 2008, 06:55 PM\']
Oh, yes, that makes perfect sense...it just didn't work well enough on the Turntable for the first more than 7,000 shows....[/quote]
Steve, you always come through for me.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'204562\' date=\'Dec 23 2008, 09:57 PM\']Steve, you always come through for me.[/quote]
Dandy. Ya wanna explain to me why it hasn't worked for 7,000+ shows, or was that just another of your lines that served no purpose other than to be a smartass to someone from Golden-Road?
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'204563\' date=\'Dec 23 2008, 10:03 PM\']Ya wanna explain to me why it hasn't worked for 7,000+ shows, or was that just another of your lines that served no purpose other than to be a smartass to someone from Golden-Road?
[/quote]
And happy holidays to you too, sunshine!! :)
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'204561\' date=\'Dec 23 2008, 09:55 PM\']Oh, yes, that makes perfect sense...it just didn't work well enough on the Turntable for the first more than 7,000 shows....[/quote]No need to get uptight and snippy. We're all just working through ideas that could potentially limit these kinds of actions.
-
[quote name=\'ClockGameJohn\' post=\'204559\' date=\'Dec 23 2008, 06:37 PM\']
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'204519\' date=\'Dec 23 2008, 12:59 AM\']
[Moving the Showcase Podiums in front of Contestant's Row] would interfere greatly with the shooting of the showcases.
[/quote]
Hm...doesn't explain why they've done rehearsals trying to figure out how to do just that. ;)
[/quote]
Has it worked? Are they going to start doing it that way?
If you're standing behind a showcase podium in its current position and the audience lights are off and you have bright stage lights in your eyes, I can't imagine how someone could take signals from someone in the audience. Plus, if the podiums are downstage facing away from the audience, you're still going to have to make a rule that if they turn around and look at someone in the audience they're disqualified. So why not just make that rule now and leave the podiums in position? Watch the clip again and it's obvious when Terry starts looking for Ted in the audience.
-
[quote name=\'chad1m\' post=\'204572\' date=\'Dec 23 2008, 11:58 PM\'][quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'204561\' date=\'Dec 23 2008, 09:55 PM\']Oh, yes, that makes perfect sense...it just didn't work well enough on the Turntable for the first more than 7,000 shows....[/quote]No need to get uptight and snippy. We're all just working through ideas that could potentially limit these kinds of actions.[/quote]
I was really directing it toward Syd and co., not toward anyone here. And if the Ted situation did have anything to do with these tests, then the staff is being ridiculously more paranoid about this than they need to be.
-
if the Ted situation did have anything to do with these tests, then the staff is being ridiculously more paranoid about this than they need to be.
Gee, ya think so?
Suppose they enact a no-looking-into-the-audience rule. What's going to happen when a contestant forgets the rule and does look into the audience? A buzzer sounds and Drew has to explain, "Sorry, but you just looked into the audience"? If it's the first showcase, the opposing contestant basically wins because there's no one to bid closer than. Suppose they go through the motions and show the second showcase. Drew says "What do you bid?" The opponent is disqualified. "One dollar, Drew". Automatic win.
They could place a wall between the contestants' backs and the audience. That would be a less than elegant fix for a problem that's occurred just once in 36 years. Simpler to ban the Teds of the world.
-
Why not just forget about it and just carry on with the show as is? Even with the "human encyclopedias" in the audience, the chance to hit on the nose in the showcase is still rather slim.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'204592\' date=\'Dec 24 2008, 09:29 AM\']
Suppose they enact a no-looking-into-the-audience rule. What's going to happen when a contestant forgets the rule and does look into the audience? A buzzer sounds and Drew has to explain, "Sorry, but you just looked into the audience"? If it's the first showcase, the opposing contestant basically wins because there's no one to bid closer than. Suppose they go through the motions and show the second showcase. Drew says "What do you bid?" The opponent is disqualified. "One dollar, Drew". Automatic win.
They could place a wall between the contestants' backs and the audience. That would be a less than elegant fix for a problem that's occurred just once in 36 years. Simpler to ban the Teds of the world.
[/quote]
Anyone know if the Povich Twenty-One booths are still around? :-)
-
[quote name=\'TimK2003\' post=\'204633\' date=\'Dec 24 2008, 04:07 PM\']
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'204592\' date=\'Dec 24 2008, 09:29 AM\']
Suppose they enact a no-looking-into-the-audience rule. What's going to happen when a contestant forgets the rule and does look into the audience? A buzzer sounds and Drew has to explain, "Sorry, but you just looked into the audience"? If it's the first showcase, the opposing contestant basically wins because there's no one to bid closer than. Suppose they go through the motions and show the second showcase. Drew says "What do you bid?" The opponent is disqualified. "One dollar, Drew". Automatic win.
They could place a wall between the contestants' backs and the audience. That would be a less than elegant fix for a problem that's occurred just once in 36 years. Simpler to ban the Teds of the world.
[/quote]
Anyone know if the Povich Twenty-One booths are still around? :-)
[/quote]
Now there is something I'd like to see! :)
-
How about a "VIP area" for regulars and people who have been on the show before. Maybe construct a balcony in 33.
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'204636\' date=\'Dec 24 2008, 04:35 PM\']
How about a "VIP area" for regulars and people who have been on the show before. Maybe construct a balcony in 33.[/quote]I know you're being facetious (at least, I hope so), but why boost their egos any more?
-
My thought was the contestant could look to the audience for help, but not the balcony. :)
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'204639\' date=\'Dec 24 2008, 04:41 PM\']
My thought was the contestant could look to the audience for help, but not the balcony. :)
[/quote]
Wouldn't stop 'em, I'm sure...
"What? You're too high up! I can't see or hear you!"
"What?"
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'204637\' date=\'Dec 24 2008, 01:37 PM\']
I know you're being facetious (at least, I hope so), but why boost their egos any more?[/quote]
Consider these two scenarios:
"You can watch the taping, Mr. Savant, but you have to do it from this part of the audience where you can't botch up the game by shouting out something that completely ruins things."
or
"Welcome to The Price is Right, Mr. Savant! We have heard about your dedication to the show and we would be honored if you would enjoy the taping from our special VIP area!"
Which one do you think is less likely to result in Mr. Savant vociferously bitching about his experience to anyone he can convince to listen?
There are two and only two goals here: a) keep Mr. Savant from ruining the game, and b) keeping the negative PR from doing so to a minimum. CBS does not (and should not) care if egos are boosted either way.
-
There's also "You're not welcome on the set, Mr. Savant. Have a nice day shopping at The Grove." Who cares if he goes whining to the tabloids or to blogspace because he was thrown out for the justifiable reason that he's going to make a mockery of the game? Heck, the show's been subjected to much worse.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'204655\' date=\'Dec 24 2008, 06:45 PM\']
There's also "You're not welcome on the set, Mr. Savant. Have a nice day shopping at The Grove." Who cares if he goes whining to the tabloids or to blogspace because he was thrown out for the justifiable reason that he's going to make a mockery of the game? Heck, the show's been subjected to much worse.[/quote]
Absolutely. I was merely pointing out to Mark that ego-stroking is not a factor here at all.
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'204636\' date=\'Dec 24 2008, 04:35 PM\']How about a "VIP area" for regulars and people who have been on the show before. Maybe construct a balcony in 33.[/quote]Get two old "savants" and they can sit up there and humorously insult the show!
Statler: That was the funniest showcase I've seen in years!
Waldorf: That can only mean one thing: you forgot to put your bifocals on again.
-
[quote name=\'Mike Tennant\' post=\'204967\' date=\'Dec 28 2008, 09:29 PM\']
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'204636\' date=\'Dec 24 2008, 04:35 PM\']How about a "VIP area" for regulars and people who have been on the show before. Maybe construct a balcony in 33.[/quote]Get two old "savants" and they can sit up there and humorously insult the show!
Statler: That was the funniest showcase I've seen in years!
Waldorf: That can only mean one thing: you forgot to put your bifocals on again.
[/quote]
Statler: I really liked that last pricing game.
Waldorf: How come?
Statler: It was the last one!
-
I'm envisioning something more like Whatever, Martha! For those of you fortunate enough to have missed this, Martha Stewart's daughter and a friend of the daughter watch tapes of Martha's shows and make fun of the segments.
-
[quote name=\'Jay Temple\' post=\'204991\' date=\'Dec 29 2008, 12:38 AM\']
I'm envisioning something more like Whatever, Martha! For those of you fortunate enough to have missed this, Martha Stewart's daughter and a friend of the daughter watch tapes of Martha's shows and make fun of the segments.
[/quote]
In a not too distant future
Next Sunday AD...