The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: TimK2003 on December 24, 2008, 04:03:29 PM
-
MODS: Feel free to convert this into a running poll, if interested.
Despite the shrinking "raw program" time of each show, there looks to be some effort in the Drew era in spending "some" idle time during the show to do either expanded conversations with contestants or the models or to come up with more creative showcases which can run a little longer than normal.
Would you, as a viewer, rather see:
A) More interaction with the contestants -- win or lose (before, during or after pricing games),
B) More conversations with the models (ala what Barker did with his Beauties 20-some years ago), or
C) Use the time to come up with longer, more creative "themed" showcases and continue to rush on contestant camera time?
-
None of them. But if one of them had to be, I would say ©.
-
Interact with the contestants.
-
I say 'B'.
-
I'd say D)None of the above. The time should be put back into playing pricing games.
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'204695\' date=\'Dec 25 2008, 02:48 PM\']
I'd say D)None of the above. The time should be put back into playing pricing games.
[/quote]
Let me expound on Mark's comment, which I agree with. Yes, Bob has his downfalls, but I miss him drawing out the drama of whether or not someone was going to win a car in Spelling Bee on the last card or win $10,000 on the last grocery picked on Grand Game.
Drew just rushes to get it over with, and unfortunately, out goes the drama.
My .02.
-
[quote name=\'TeppanYaki\' post=\'204703\' date=\'Dec 25 2008, 02:34 PM\']
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'204695\' date=\'Dec 25 2008, 02:48 PM\']
I'd say D)None of the above. The time should be put back into playing pricing games.
[/quote]
Let me expound on Mark's comment, which I agree with. Yes, Bob has his downfalls, but I miss him drawing out the drama of whether or not someone was going to win a car in Spelling Bee on the last card or win $10,000 on the last grocery picked on Grand Game.
Drew just rushes to get it over with, and unfortunately, out goes the drama.
My .02.
[/quote]
I'm with these guys. The first two options give Drew more face time, which I deem undesirable; the third enables more of Drew's yukkity-yuk showcases, which I likewise deem undesirable. Because your poll didn't cover all the options I didn't make it a for-real poll (plus the topic isn't gaining much traction).
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'204695\' date=\'Dec 25 2008, 03:48 PM\']
I'd say D)None of the above. The time should be put back into playing pricing games.
[/quote]
I never thought I'd completely agree with something Mr. Odor said.
Anything to allow a tedious playing of Three Strikes is okay in my book.
/Yes, Drew called out Three Strikes on its first playing this Season.
-
Unless CBS gives TPiR back a few minutes of commercial time (which has no chance in hell of happening), there's simply no way to prevent the show (with its current six game/six One Bid/two Showcase Showdown format) from being rushed.
Now, there are three possible options to change the format that would reduce the rushing, but none of them are pretty. They could either:
A) Eliminate Contestant's Row, and have the called-down contestants come up on stage, (like TNPiR'94)
B) Eliminate the Showcase Showdowns, and have the top two pricing game winners advance to the showcase (like the half-hour shows).
or, C) Play four pricing games and four One Bids, instead of six, and have two players in each Showcase Showdown, instead of three. (Five One Bids and five pricing games wouldn't work, because one Showcase Showdown would have two contestants, and one would have three, which would be awkward.)
The downside of option A would be that it would eliminate the last remaining tie to the original Bill Cullen version. Also, it would be possible for a contestant to win absolutely nothing at all, and the producers could decide in advance who plays what game, which I think would be unfair.
The downside of option B would be that the contestants who play pricing games with cheaper prizes would be screwed out of the Showcase, unless the contestants who play games with more expensive prizes lost. To me, that's a pretty major flaw. Also, it would eliminate the Big Wheel, which I think has become a major part of the show.
And the big downside of option C would be that TPiR would have too much time to spare. The pace would have to be slowed to a grinding halt in order to keep the show from running short. They would basically have to stretch out the show an extra 10 minutes or so to get everything to fit, since the average pricing game segment, including the One Bid, is about 4-5 minutes. Also, the quicker pricing games, like Switch?, Double Prices, Side by Side, Most Expensive, or One Right Price, would have to be drastically reduced in frequency, unless they are balanced out with several slower games.
-
I actually also thought about reducing then number if IUFB/pricing games to five. Yeah, five.
That would involve just one Showdown -- with the top two wheel scores advancing to the Showcase. The top money winner (regardless of wheel score) would still have the bid/pass option in the Showcase, but there could be a $1000 bonus to the one who wins the Showdown. (No bonus spins ... still need the $1 for that)
-
D) None of the above.
-
or, C) Play four pricing games and four One Bids, instead of six, and have two players in each Showcase Showdown, instead of three. (Five One Bids and five pricing games wouldn't work, because one Showcase Showdown would have two contestants, and one would have three, which would be awkward.)
They could have one Showcase Showdown with all 5 contestants.
-
[quote name=\'abba\' post=\'204735\' date=\'Dec 26 2008, 09:21 AM\']They could have one Showcase Showdown with all 5 contestants.[/quote]
You know...that's not the absolute worse outside-the-box idea I've seen.
-
[quote name=\'abba\' post=\'204735\' date=\'Dec 26 2008, 09:21 AM\']
or, C) Play four pricing games and four One Bids, instead of six, and have two players in each Showcase Showdown, instead of three. (Five One Bids and five pricing games wouldn't work, because one Showcase Showdown would have two contestants, and one would have three, which would be awkward.)
They could have one Showcase Showdown with all 5 contestants.
[/quote]
I would suggest somehow breaking it into two segments, just to break up the monotomy a little. Maybe go to break after the first three spinners, then come back with part two.
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'204738\' date=\'Dec 26 2008, 10:56 AM\']I would suggest somehow breaking it into two segments, just to break up the monotomy a little. Maybe go to break after the first three spinners, then come back with part two.[/quote]
Makes sense but if the context of the discussion is 'time conservation,' wouldn't one segment (even if it's a tad longer) achieve that more than two? On the surface, a second segment would involve another commercial break.
I almost added the suggestion that either a) only pricing game winners get to spin or b) they go back to the pre-wheel rules and just send the top two winners to the showcase (which would probably allow the sixth game to be played) .... but that would reinstate the unintentional bias of the winners of the lesser-prize games (Clock Game, etc.) to not even have a chance of getting to the showcase in an all-(or most)winners show.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'204737\' date=\'Dec 26 2008, 07:42 AM\'][quote name=\'abba\' post=\'204735\' date=\'Dec 26 2008, 09:21 AM\']They could have one Showcase Showdown with all 5 contestants.[/quote]
You know...that's not the absolute worse outside-the-box idea I've seen.[/quote]
Boring. I can't see extending the SS without making it drag. If you had spinoffs it would be interminable. No need to drop an entire act, either. One SS with the top 3 winners immediately prior to the Showcases would work. You'd pick up, what, 3:00 - 4:00 that way?
Under Barker the SS could be played fast or slow as needed for time, and he knew how to do that.
-
[quote name=\'abba\' post=\'204735\' date=\'Dec 26 2008, 09:21 AM\']They could have one Showcase Showdown with all 5 contestants.[/quote]
Let the top winner through automatically and let the other 4 spin it out for the other spot. That way you have fewer spins of the wheel and don't have to worry about getting two people from one SCSD.
If you're tinkering with the format to speed things up, you could also eliminate the option of a second spin. It wouldn't save a lot of time, but it would help keep things from dragging if you increase the number of contestants.
-
Let the top winner through automatically and let the other 4 spin
If you don't drop an act you'll have five people spinning the wheel. If you drop an act (One Bid + stage game) AND you drop one SS you pick up more like 8:00 - 9:00 minutes.
-
Thinking outside the box, would it be completely out of the question to completely remove the wheel and do some sort of hidden-bid One Bid game? All six players play, you're shown an item, you get ten seconds to place a hidden bid, two closest to the ARP without going over play for the Showcases. A tie between players yields another round until you get two players.
-
[quote name=\'Unrealtor\' post=\'204745\' date=\'Dec 26 2008, 02:06 PM\']
[quote name=\'abba\' post=\'204735\' date=\'Dec 26 2008, 09:21 AM\']They could have one Showcase Showdown with all 5 contestants.[/quote]
Let the top winner through automatically and let the other 4 spin it out for the other spot. That way you have fewer spins of the wheel and don't have to worry about getting two people from one SCSD.
If you're tinkering with the format to speed things up, you could also eliminate the option of a second spin. It wouldn't save a lot of time, but it would help keep things from dragging if you increase the number of contestants.
[/quote]
But if you let the top winner through, you still need to give them a chance to spin the wheel once for the chance to win up to $26K.
A one-spin per person rule wouldn't be such a bad idea, but then you take the element of risk out of the contestants hands (should I spin again with 60 cents or should I try to better my score?).
-
[quote name=\'TimK2003\' post=\'204752\' date=\'Dec 26 2008, 12:06 PM\']
But if you let the top winner through, you still need to give them a chance to spin the wheel once for the chance to win up to $26K.[/quote]
Why?
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'204753\' date=\'Dec 26 2008, 04:08 PM\']
[quote name=\'TimK2003\' post=\'204752\' date=\'Dec 26 2008, 12:06 PM\']
But if you let the top winner through, you still need to give them a chance to spin the wheel once for the chance to win up to $26K.[/quote]
Why?
[/quote]
Worst case scenario:
All 5 pricing games are lost...By default, contestant "A' gets the free pass due to winning the most expensive IUFB...The other 4 players who also lost their pricing games all get a chance to spin the wheel.
Contestants "C" & "E" Hit the dollar in regular play and each hit it again for $26K each. In the non-bonus 2nd spin-off, player "E" moves on to the showcase with their bonus money.
Now out of the three contestants, which one got the short end of the stick?
-
[quote name=\'TimK2003\' post=\'204756\' date=\'Dec 26 2008, 12:23 PM\']
Now out of the three contestants, which one got the short end of the stick?[/quote]
Sure. My point is, there are plenty of examples of game shows that screw over a player like that in the name of better television.
I'm more amused by the folks who are suggesting it be dumped entirely, seeing as how it's become one of the iconic moments on the show. Holy Gawd, that would make firing Roger looks like nothing in comparison.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'204759\' date=\'Dec 26 2008, 12:34 PM\']
[quote name=\'TimK2003\' post=\'204756\' date=\'Dec 26 2008, 12:23 PM\']
Now out of the three contestants, which one got the short end of the stick?[/quote]
Sure. My point is, there are plenty of examples of game shows that screw over a player like that in the name of better television.
I'm more amused by the folks who are suggesting it be dumped entirely, seeing as how it's become one of the iconic moments on the show. Holy Gawd, that would make firing Roger looks like nothing in comparison.
[/quote]
Just drop the showcases and make the prizes nicer. That'll free up plenty of time, and players will still win the same amount.
/Note the tongue in cheek.
//Note it...
-
[quote name=\'Casey Buck\' post=\'204719\' date=\'Dec 25 2008, 09:45 PM\']And the big downside of option C would be that TPiR would have too much time to spare. The pace would have to be slowed to a grinding halt in order to keep the show from running short. They would basically have to stretch out the show an extra 10 minutes or so to get everything to fit, since the average pricing game segment, including the One Bid, is about 4-5 minutes. Also, the quicker pricing games, like Switch?, Double Prices, Side by Side, Most Expensive, or One Right Price, would have to be drastically reduced in frequency, unless they are balanced out with several slower games.
[/quote]
While all of your points hit the mark, we're still leaving out what Chris said earlier: get rid of the yuk-yuk showcases.
Another nitpick - but let's go back to Bob. You knew if you're taking too much time if he says "We've got an hour show to run here." He controlled the game. I haven't seen any proof that Drew's been able to do that. Let's go back to a Punchboard this week. The lady took fricking forever to just make the choice of higher or lower AND to punch the holes out. You could have shaved off at least a minute or so if she would have gotten with the program. There's interesting contestants, and then there are those like her that needed a cattle prod.
IMO - you can have this show on point and still get drama out of it.
-
keep the 6 games, the 2 wheels - drop one of the showcases . play the Aussie version of the bonus.
ta-da!
-
I like the idea of going to just one showcase, and having the contestants enter their bids secretly a la Jeopardy!
The benefits, both generally and for me specifically: 1) you save a couple of minutes; 2) you can (hopefully) use only the best 50% of the "funny" showcase ideas, which would be a marked improvement; 3) the Showcase is the most tedious part of the show to me and I fully endorse anything that makes it shorter; 4) you have a reasonable excuse to have the audience be quiet; 5) it's a much smoother edit if someone is taking five minutes to write down a bid; 6) you can give certain fans one of their beloved cash bonuses if a contestant is within $250, since there's no longer a second showcase.
-
[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' post=\'204781\' date=\'Dec 26 2008, 03:44 PM\']
The benefits, both generally and for me specifically: 1) you save a couple of minutes; 2) you can (hopefully) use only the best 50% of the "funny" showcase ideas, which would be a marked improvement; 3) the Showcase is the most tedious part of the show to me and I fully endorse anything that makes it shorter; 4) you have a reasonable excuse to have the audience be quiet; 5) it's a much smoother edit if someone is taking five minutes to write down a bid; 6) you can give certain fans one of their beloved cash bonuses if a contestant is within $250, since there's no longer a second showcase.
[/quote]
7) If they're both writing down a bid at the same time, crowd noise isn't really relevant since both players are getting the same information.
-
[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' post=\'204781\' date=\'Dec 26 2008, 03:44 PM\']
I like the idea of going to just one showcase, and having the contestants enter their bids secretly a la Jeopardy!
The benefits, both generally and for me specifically: 1) you save a couple of minutes; 2) you can (hopefully) use only the best 50% of the "funny" showcase ideas, which would be a marked improvement; 3) the Showcase is the most tedious part of the show to me and I fully endorse anything that makes it shorter; 4) you have a reasonable excuse to have the audience be quiet; 5) it's a much smoother edit if someone is taking five minutes to write down a bid; 6) you can give certain fans one of their beloved cash bonuses if a contestant is within $250, since there's no longer a second showcase.
[/quote]
Not to mention fewer prizes to book, transport, warehouse and schlep into the studio.
Stepping back for a moment, why is it suddenly necessary to cut things out of the show? They edit every show anyway, so if it goes over, no biggie (c.f. Dawson, Richard: Family Feud).
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'204785\' date=\'Dec 26 2008, 05:53 PM\']
You make a very large and unwarranted assumption with "hate him so deeply and personally".[/quote]
Yes, that was out-of-line for me to assume that. I apologize.
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'204785\' date=\'Dec 26 2008, 05:53 PM\']The guy makes $7 million per year to do at best a mediocre job of emceeing this show.[/quote]
I will agree with this. That is WAY too much money to be paying a game show rookie.
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'204785\' date=\'Dec 26 2008, 05:53 PM\']His performances are uneven, he ridicules the very things he should be pimping out, and reading the tea leaves he appears to have a major role setting the show's "new direction". As cited earlier he seems to have little concept of time. So he's going to get a little flak over it.[/quote]
You make a good point, I don't totally agree with it. But I totally understand your feelings.
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'204785\' date=\'Dec 26 2008, 05:53 PM\']TPIR isn't the right vehicle for him. They need to get someone with "emcee chops" as someone else put it.[/quote]
Sadly, I agree with this.
-
[quote name=\'J.R.\' post=\'204788\' date=\'Dec 26 2008, 07:00 PM\']I will agree with this. That is WAY too much money to be paying a game show rookie.[/quote]I think its way too much for anyone to get paid, in any industry, period.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'204785\' date=\'Dec 26 2008, 06:53 PM\']The guy makes $7 million per year to do at best a mediocre job of emceeing this show. His performances are uneven, he ridicules the very things he should be pimping out, and reading the tea leaves he appears to have a major role setting the show's "new direction". As cited earlier he seems to have little concept of time. So he's going to get a little flak over it. TPIR isn't the right vehicle for him. They need to get someone with "emcee chops" as someone else put it.[/quote]
In all fairness, in the shows that have aired over the past week or so, which were taped the first week of December, the stupidity factor was back down near 0, and Drew's hosting was markedly better. It makes me wonder if somebody with some authority (be it Drew, Syd, or whoever) finally realized how much damage they were doing.
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'204800\' date=\'Dec 26 2008, 09:37 PM\']
It makes me wonder if somebody with some authority (be it Drew, Syd, or whoever) finally realized how much damage they were doing.
[/quote]
When was the perfect Showcase episode taped, in comparison to the Christmas week? This week, he seemed to inject some life into the show, and I got a kick out of his entrance on this morning's show....
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'204802\' date=\'Dec 26 2008, 07:59 PM\']
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'204800\' date=\'Dec 26 2008, 09:37 PM\']
It makes me wonder if somebody with some authority (be it Drew, Syd, or whoever) finally realized how much damage they were doing.
[/quote]
When was the perfect Showcase episode taped, in comparison to the Christmas week?[/quote]
9/22/08, according to Capitano's recap at G-R. Much earlier.
-
[quote name=\'Unrealtor\' post=\'204745\' date=\'Dec 26 2008, 12:06 PM\']
[quote name=\'abba\' post=\'204735\' date=\'Dec 26 2008, 09:21 AM\']They could have one Showcase Showdown with all 5 contestants.[/quote]
Let the top winner through automatically and let the other 4 spin it out for the other spot. That way you have fewer spins of the wheel and don't have to worry about getting two people from one SCSD.[/quote]
This is the best idea I've seen yet, although I like the idea of giving the top winner a free spin.
If you're tinkering with the format to speed things up, you could also eliminate the option of a second spin. It wouldn't save a lot of time, but it would help keep things from dragging if you increase the number of contestants.
But I hate this idea. What makes the SCSD interesting is that there's some skill involved. Having only one spin turns into a pure game of chance.
Another idea, which I admit is a variant of one already presented: Do a one-bid among the three players in each half. If there's a tie, the player who won the larger prize has the option of changing his own bid by $1 or forcing the other player to change his.
-
[quote name=\'Jay Temple\' post=\'204821\' date=\'Dec 27 2008, 01:28 AM\'][quote name=\'Unrealtor\' post=\'204745\' date=\'Dec 26 2008, 12:06 PM\'][quote name=\'abba\' post=\'204735\' date=\'Dec 26 2008, 09:21 AM\']They could have one Showcase Showdown with all 5 contestants.[/quote]Let the top winner through automatically and let the other 4 spin it out for the other spot. That way you have fewer spins of the wheel and don't have to worry about getting two people from one SCSD.[/quote]This is the best idea I've seen yet, although I like the idea of giving the top winner a free spin.[/quote]
I'm not as fond of this, but just for aesthetic reasons. Rewarding the top winner with a free pass seems too much of a reward for someone who didn't necessarily play any better and just happened to play for a bigger prize. If we have to streamline it, I'd have the two lowest-scoring players only get one spin. That's two extra spins which set the scores that the other three try to beat. Seems like that structure would add a tiny bit more strategy too.
-
Why bother tinkering with the rules of the SCSD?
Build three matching wheels. =D All three take their first spin, then secret decisions to spin or stay, then second spins. In and out of the act in a minute and a half tops.
If they really wanted to get crazy, they could build six wheels and have one [echo] Super Showcase Showdown [/echo] which gives the top two players for the Showcase.
/The beeper would be a musical masterpiece
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'204826\' date=\'Dec 27 2008, 05:00 AM\'][quote name=\'Jay Temple\' post=\'204821\' date=\'Dec 27 2008, 01:28 AM\'][quote name=\'Unrealtor\' post=\'204745\' date=\'Dec 26 2008, 12:06 PM\'][quote name=\'abba\' post=\'204735\' date=\'Dec 26 2008, 09:21 AM\']They could have one Showcase Showdown with all 5 contestants.[/quote]Let the top winner through automatically and let the other 4 spin it out for the other spot. That way you have fewer spins of the wheel and don't have to worry about getting two people from one SCSD.[/quote]This is the best idea I've seen yet, although I like the idea of giving the top winner a free spin.[/quote]I'm not as fond of this, but just for aesthetic reasons. Rewarding the top winner with a free pass seems too much of a reward for someone who didn't necessarily play any better and just happened to play for a bigger prize. [/quote] But that's how it went on the half-hour show for three years, right? Two people who won the most get through to the Showcase, even if it's on account of winning the bigger one-bid prize.
Isn't the show "being in the right place at the right time" anyway? You might be five dollars away from your One-Bid and get stuck with Double Prices, while some doofus flukes up on stage to play for a Corvette. Such are the vagaries of what happens at 33, and no one seems to be bothered by that.
Given the choice of more time to actually play the games or having a full slate of six games that are rushed through, I'd pick cutting one one-bid/pricing game set. I like getting to know a little bit about the contestant who is about to play, rather than having everyone be a cog in the machine that is replaced five times. If that means we have to figure out a way to have a five-person Showcase Showdown, then I think that's a worthwhile fix.
-
How many participating sponsors are on the show these days? Maybe Colonial Penn could settle for one 30-second spot between acts and be the "exclusive presenter" and thus leave more time for gameplay.
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'204846\' date=\'Dec 27 2008, 02:32 PM\']
How many participating sponsors are on the show these days? Maybe Colonial Penn could settle for one 30-second spot between acts and be the "exclusive presenter" and thus leave more time for gameplay.[/quote]
No Wilford Brimley? :o
-
Off the board: Bring back The CBS Midday News.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'204840\' date=\'Dec 27 2008, 01:44 PM\']
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'204826\' date=\'Dec 27 2008, 05:00 AM\']I'm not as fond of this, but just for aesthetic reasons. Rewarding the top winner with a free pass seems too much of a reward for someone who didn't necessarily play any better and just happened to play for a bigger prize. [/quote] But that's how it went on the half-hour show for three years, right? Two people who won the most get through to the Showcase, even if it's on account of winning the bigger one-bid prize.[/quote]
Yep, and I wasn't fond of that much either.
-
In all fairness, in the shows that have aired over the past week or so, which were taped the first week of December, the stupidity factor was back down near 0, and Drew's hosting was markedly better. It makes me wonder if somebody with some authority (be it Drew, Syd, or whoever) finally realized how much damage they were doing.
Maybe Goodson put out a memo.
Seriously, I wouldn't rule out that TPTB have been reading the screeds on this board, golden-road.net and elsewhere, and have decided to cut the crap.
OK, let's suppose we cut an act (consisting of a One Bid and a stage game) and drop one SS. That gives us about 8:00 - 9:00. What do we do with all that extra time? Extree-funny showcases? Let players take 10 minutes playing Ten Chances? Have Drew do a monologue?
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'204878\' date=\'Dec 27 2008, 05:56 PM\']OK, let's suppose we cut an act (consisting of a One Bid and a stage game) and drop one SS. That gives us about 8:00 - 9:00. What do we do with all that extra time? Extree-funny showcases? Let players take 10 minutes playing Ten Chances? Have Drew do a monologue?[/quote]Holy Jeezum crow. Eight minutes? Dang.
But if you spread out eight minutes over the remaining seven acts, it allows for one minute or so in each other act, which means you no longer have to barnstorm through games that deserve a little more time, and also not having to say "You win your showcase! G'bye!"
-
Has anyone ever considered reducing the number of bidders in Contestant's Row from four to three? That's probably a good two minutes or so trimmed off the show while not hacking the show to pieces.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'204882\' date=\'Dec 27 2008, 06:18 PM\']
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'204878\' date=\'Dec 27 2008, 05:56 PM\']OK, let's suppose we cut an act (consisting of a One Bid and a stage game) and drop one SS. That gives us about 8:00 - 9:00. What do we do with all that extra time? Extree-funny showcases? Let players take 10 minutes playing Ten Chances? Have Drew do a monologue?[/quote]Holy Jeezum crow. Eight minutes? Dang.[/quote]
Well, that's why this question has to be asked.
Figure each segment runs 4 to 6 minutes.
But if you spread out eight minutes over the remaining seven acts, it allows for one minute or so in each other act, which means you no longer have to barnstorm through games that deserve a little more time, and also not having to say "You win your showcase! G'bye!"
It might give them some relief in editing (shortening segments), but OTOH the segments would drag.
[quote name=\'Loogaroo\' post=\'204886\' date=\'Dec 27 2008, 06:45 PM\']
Has anyone ever considered reducing the number of bidders in Contestant's Row from four to three? That's probably a good two minutes or so trimmed off the show while not hacking the show to pieces.[/quote]
Not a bad idea.
-
[quote name=\'Loogaroo\' post=\'204886\' date=\'Dec 27 2008, 08:45 PM\']
Has anyone ever considered reducing the number of bidders in Contestant's Row from four to three? That's probably a good two minutes or so trimmed off the show while not hacking the show to pieces.
[/quote]
That doesn't sound like a bad idea. It would be a less severe format change than some of the other ones being proposed.
I also like the thought of a heavier hand in editing. You could pretty easily cut out Drew asking Rich who the next contestant is and the contestants staring into the audience, asking what the other bids are, etc. during the one-bid, down to just four numbers followed by "the actual retail price is..." It wouldn't add up to more than a minute or so per show, but that might be enough to keep the rest from being too rushed.
-
What about taking a page from the Doug Davidson playbook and skip CR & the IUFB altogether?
If you are called, you play the next pricing game. (This is the only thing I would take from the DD playbook)
You can still have 6 players
You can still keep the Showcase Showdown intact
You still have the two Showcases.
You could probably reduce/retire most of the quickie games.
And CBS could elect to take out more time for Wilford and his pals down the road and you still wouldn't have to rush!
-
[quote name=\'TimK2003\' post=\'204953\' date=\'Dec 28 2008, 05:58 PM\']
What about taking a page from the Doug Davidson playbook and skip CR & the IUFB altogether?
If you are called, you play the next pricing game. (This is the only thing I would take from the DD playbook)[/quote]
Bah, then the probability of a fratboy moron (http://\"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUyk6DQWryk\") slipping through are way too high. And yes, before we go piling on the CC's sometimes ineptness to weed them out, they could act really normal then be the jerk when the cameras roll.
Three in the Row does sound like a good idea.
-
[quote name=\'TimK2003\' post=\'204953\' date=\'Dec 28 2008, 02:58 PM\']What about taking a page from the Doug Davidson playbook and skip CR & the IUFB altogether?[/quote]And in so doing you remove one of the iconic elements of the show that most people recognize.
I don't particularly enjoy that portion of the game. I think the strategy that exists was discovered fairly early on, and that there's no skill in being fourth and cutting off the third guy by going one dollar over, or by bidding "$1, Drew."
But at the same time, there are parts of the show that are so etched in the public consciousness that you couldn't remove them without upsetting the apple cart.
-
If they eliminated CR, they'd have to say "C'mon UP." I prefer earning your way on stage.
-
Take away CR and you take away the title of the show. Plain and simple.
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'204970\' date=\'Dec 28 2008, 08:54 PM\']
Take away CR and you take away the title of the show. Plain and simple.
[/quote]Eh. I think The Row has become so played out it's not worth the time. I think the games themselves are more visible now, and deserve more time.
As for the Showcases, I dare say that Chris and anyone complaining about them hasn't been watching the show the past couple weeks. They've been OK to great recently. I'd say about a half-step up from what we were getting the last couple years Barker was at the helm. I wouldn't mind cutting one out, because usually one is an unthemed Showcase with a room of furniture at the beginning, a trip, spa or piano at the end with something smaller in between. If it comes first, it's an InstaPass for the Top Winner, and it doesn't generate much more excitement if it's second.
-
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'204975\' date=\'Dec 28 2008, 06:58 PM\'][quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'204970\' date=\'Dec 28 2008, 08:54 PM\']Take away CR and you take away the title of the show. Plain and simple.[/quote]Eh. I think The Row has become so played out it's not worth the time. I think the games themselves are more visible now, and deserve more time.[/quote]Really? That's not what I see when I get there. People are jazzed just to show up and get just one chance to play. I think you overestimate how visible The Row is.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'204976\' date=\'Dec 28 2008, 11:02 PM\']
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'204975\' date=\'Dec 28 2008, 06:58 PM\'][quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'204970\' date=\'Dec 28 2008, 08:54 PM\']Take away CR and you take away the title of the show. Plain and simple.[/quote]Eh. I think The Row has become so played out it's not worth the time. I think the games themselves are more visible now, and deserve more time.[/quote]Really? That's not what I see when I get there. People are jazzed just to show up and get just one chance to play. I think you overestimate how visible The Row is.
[/quote]
By knocking out Contestant's Row, you knock out the "stoner bids"...Outside of Clock Game, it will be hard for someone to bid $420.. :-)
DREW: The Clock will start with your first bid, Go.
CHEECH: $420
DREW: Higher!
CHEECH: $420
DREW: HIGHER!!!
CHEECH: Man, this must be good stuff if I'm gettin even higher. MORE $420, Drew.
/Dave's Not Here!!!
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'204976\' date=\'Dec 28 2008, 10:02 PM\']]Really? That's not what I see when I get there. People are jazzed just to show up and get just one chance to play. I think you overestimate how visible The Row is.[/quote]I know what you meant there. Maybe I am. If I had my choice, I'd kick out two games and one Showdown. At least two of the games are non-entities like Double Prices or One Right Price, simply there to fill out a roster. The last month or so worth of line-ups have been filled with them. IMO, the show's going to have only two types of games: major prize games (for cars, cash) and quick games. If a game doesn't fit into either category, like Shell Game or Credit Card, they won't be featured. Hell I wouldn't be surprised if they got retired.
-
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'204979\' date=\'Dec 28 2008, 07:35 PM\'][quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'204976\' date=\'Dec 28 2008, 10:02 PM\']]Really? That's not what I see when I get there. People are jazzed just to show up and get just one chance to play. I think you overestimate how visible The Row is.[/quote]I know what you meant there. Maybe I am. If I had my choice, I'd kick out two games and one Showdown. At least two of the games are non-entities like Double Prices or One Right Price, simply there to fill out a roster.[/quote] No, they're there because they're quick games. And for the most part, the truest tests of pricing skill in the whole show, even if most of them are variations on a mechanic that differ only on the type of chrome that's slathered on the prop.
I don't want to see three of these one decision games on the show, but I understand why they exist. They existed all the way from the beginning of the show.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'204980\' date=\'Dec 28 2008, 10:52 PM\']No, they're there because they're quick games. And for the most part, the truest tests of pricing skill in the whole show, even if most of them are variations on a mechanic that differ only on the type of chrome that's slathered on the prop.[/quote]Perhaps so, but I don't see them as being a big audience draw. If the show dropped them when going to four games instead of six, would they really be worse off? I don't think so.
I don't want to see three of these one decision games on the show, but I understand why they exist. They existed all the way from the beginning of the show.
Just because something existed 30 years ago doesn't mean it should still exist now. They still serve the purpose of being quick (which is what I said, albeit differently), but if the show doesn't need quick games then why keep them?
-
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'204988\' date=\'Dec 28 2008, 09:16 PM\']Perhaps so, but I don't see them as being a big audience draw. If the show dropped them when going to four games instead of six, would they really be worse off? I don't think so.[/quote]Wait a minute, don't change the subject here. The point at hand was why the "quick games" exist. Whether they're audience draws or not is immaterial to our discussion at this point.
(Now, I wasn't clear about when you said "roster," whether they were taking up one space in a grid of one hundred or so games that are there, or one out of the six games that can be played each day. I assumed you meant that the presence of quick games precludes the existence of other games that can co-exist on the Master Plan.)
Just because something existed 30 years ago doesn't mean it should still exist now.
Have you ever read Logan's Run?
-
Don't change a thing except add 20 minutes of commercials and 10 mins of gameplay and call it the fabulous 90-minute Price Is Right. Mollify affiliates by dropping the 8:30 half-hour of the CBS Morning Show.
-
Wait a minute, don't change the subject here. The point at hand was why the "quick games" exist. Whether they're audience draws or not is immaterial to our discussion at this point.
(Now, I wasn't clear about when you said "roster," whether they were taking up one space in a grid of one hundred or so games that are there, or one out of the six games that can be played each day. I assumed you meant that the presence of quick games precludes the existence of other games that can co-exist on the Master Plan.)
Looking back, I realize that I said "roster" when I meant "line-up", as in the daily slotting of games. I'm not saying that the existence of quick games is the reason we don't have more longer games in the rotation.
Just because something existed 30 years ago doesn't mean it should still exist now.
Have you ever read Logan's Run?
[/quote]A cute joke, but not really pertinent to the current discussion. I'm not demanding everything of a certain age go. I'm saying re-evaluate them and their purpose. If the show was in a position where they didn't need to play a quick game to make sure a line-up timed right (I think it's 27 minutes now), since they don't add much excitement they could be retired with little negative effect.
-
If I had my choice, I'd kick out two games and one Showdown.
That's a good 12 minutes. Good gravy, what are you going to do with all that time? Bring out Kenny Rogers and have him do a song and sit down for an interview???
-
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'204979\' date=\'Dec 28 2008, 10:35 PM\']I know what you meant there. Maybe I am. If I had my choice, I'd kick out two games and one Showdown. At least two of the games are non-entities like Double Prices or One Right Price, simply there to fill out a roster. The last month or so worth of line-ups have been filled with them. IMO, the show's going to have only two types of games: major prize games (for cars, cash) and quick games. If a game doesn't fit into either category, like Shell Game or Credit Card, they won't be featured. Hell I wouldn't be surprised if they got retired.[/quote]
Wow, that certainly is a different analysis than this one (http://\"http://www.golden-road.net/archive/index.php/topic,4249.msg40475.html#msg40475\").
EDIT: Or this one (http://\"http://www.golden-road.net/archive/index.php/topic,1237.msg40467.html#msg40467\"), for that matter.
(For those who have forgotten, STYDfan and CarShark are the same person.)
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'204996\' date=\'Dec 29 2008, 05:59 AM\']
That's a good 12 minutes. Good gravy, what are you going to do with all that time? Bring out Kenny Rogers and have him do a song and sit down for an interview???
[/quote]
So long as he doesn't do "She Believes In Me."
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'205027\' date=\'Dec 29 2008, 06:21 PM\']
Wow, that certainly is a different analysis than this one (http://\"http://www.golden-road.net/archive/index.php/topic,4249.msg40475.html#msg40475\").
EDIT: Or this one (http://\"http://www.golden-road.net/archive/index.php/topic,1237.msg40467.html#msg40467\"), for that matter.[/quote]
Because it's impossible for an opinion to change over the course of four and a half years.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'205029\' date=\'Dec 29 2008, 09:39 PM\']Because it's impossible for an opinion to change over the course of four and a half years.[/quote]
Very true, but this always struck me as something he was posting to brag about, as though he were proud of having such a drastically different opinion than everyone else.
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'205031\' date=\'Dec 29 2008, 06:43 PM\']
Very true, but this always struck me as something he was posting to brag about, as though he were proud of having such a drastically different opinion than everyone else.[/quote]
He would also bestow the title of "Evil Personified" upon me six months later, so it's very possible that he was. Four and a half years ago.
-
Just because something existed 30 years ago doesn't mean it should still exist now.
Have you ever read Logan's Run?
A cute joke, but not really pertinent to the current discussion.
Oh, but it is. It proves that you either have no problem holding contradictory positions, or the English language matters not a whit to you. You're saying that "because it existed 30 years ago doesn't mean it should exist now" at the same time that you say that my "Logan's Run" reference isn't applicable, when it is. Double Prices is the oldest of the quick games. That is factually correct. If you want to argue that it shouldn't exist because it's too fast, or too plain, or it doesn't involve any goofy props or avatars, then that's fine. Argue that point. Don't argue that it sucks because it's old, because you've already had your cake and eaten it too.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'205032\' date=\'Dec 29 2008, 10:12 PM\']He would also bestow the title of "Evil Personified" upon me six months later, so it's very possible that he was. Four and a half years ago.[/quote]
Well, then I'd still love to hear how his opinion did the 180 that it did, going from "Double Prices is the best game on the show" to "Double Prices is an unnecessary game that I wouldn't blame them for retiring." I'm sure it's a very interesting explanation, especially given the unusual premise that he started out by proclaiming so strongly.
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'205034\' date=\'Dec 29 2008, 10:33 PM\']Well, then I'd still love to hear how his opinion did the 180 that it did, going from "Double Prices is the best game on the show" to "Double Prices is an unnecessary game that I wouldn't blame them for retiring." I'm sure it's a very interesting explanation, especially given the unusual premise that he started out by proclaiming so strongly.
[/quote]When I first started watching the show, I did so primarily to see people win. (This was mentioned in the post you linked to.) I therefore gravitated towards the games that people won more often, and those are the quickies. I've grown to appreciate other aspects of the show besides just the wins, and also some of the longer, less won games. There are some longer games I don't like (Switcheroo immediately comes to mind with 3 Strikes closely following) because they aren't won often, but others I do (It's In The Bag and 1/2 Off). Uhhh...that's it, pretty much. BTW, I see through your phony "curiosity" and recognize your comment for the backhanded attempt on my character it was. Nice to see it backfire rather quickly, though. You can bet that one thing hasn't changed, Gavazzi. I still think you're a pompous, self-righteous jerk who's afraid of change. Take comfort in that.
Don't argue that it sucks because it's old, because you've already had your cake and eaten it too.
But I'm not arguing that at all. I'm arguing against your point that solely because of it's age means it's good or somehow worthy of not being retired.
-
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'205042\' date=\'Dec 30 2008, 02:39 AM\']
BTW, I see through your phony "curiosity" and recognize your comment for the backhanded attempt on my character it was. Nice to see it backfire rather quickly, though. You can bet that one thing hasn't changed, Gavazzi. I still think you're a pompous, self-righteous jerk who's afraid of change. Take comfort in that.[/quote]
You were doing so well before you stooped to this level.
(I mean that, seriously. You had this won.)
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'205055\' date=\'Dec 30 2008, 01:17 PM\']
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'205042\' date=\'Dec 30 2008, 02:39 AM\']
BTW, I see through your phony "curiosity" and recognize your comment for the backhanded attempt on my character it was. Nice to see it backfire rather quickly, though. You can bet that one thing hasn't changed, Gavazzi. I still think you're a pompous, self-righteous jerk who's afraid of change. Take comfort in that.[/quote]
You were doing so well before you stooped to this level.
(I mean that, seriously. You had this won.)
[/quote]Frankly, I still do. He has no comeback. I just called Gavazzi out on his intellectual tap dancing. If he wanted to say that I'm an anti-social contrarian (and therefore shouldn't be listened to), he could have done so. Either say what you really mean or don't say anything at all.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'205055\' date=\'Dec 30 2008, 12:17 PM\']You were doing so well before you stooped to this level.
(I mean that, seriously. You had this won.)[/quote]
The worse part is that wasn't in the initial response. It originally stopped at " Uhhh...that's it, pretty much."
/Isn't calling someone a "jerk" against the rules?
-
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'205057\' date=\'Dec 30 2008, 10:51 AM\']
Frankly, I still do.[/quote]
Your opinion. Which in the court of public opinion means precisely nothing. I'm just pointing out what I see from where I sit, that's all. You were up three goals with a minute to go, and you just let in four. (In my opinion. Which also means precisely nothing.)
Joe: JMODO, but let the mods mod. Jumping up and down and yelling "Ooh, didn't that break Rule X?" is an irritating practice best left to people that I know you're better than.
-
The funny thing is that with the less program time they have, they still have added five unnecessary seconds of music and audience applause coming out of the last two breaks. Granted, the crowd starts applauding the second they come out of break these days, but still...
I don't know if it'll make much of a difference, but I've long considered that it's time to cut the opening down, especially since the light box is gone in the switch to HD--start it with Rich calling the first contestant, cue the music and applause and you're off and running. If Rich has to say "The Bob Barker Studio," say it either in introducing Drew or "From the Bob Barker Studio at Television City in Hollywood, this is Rich Fields speaking..."
Also, as nice as it is to see the models waving goodbye at the end, it seems like there's just too much video white space between the end of Rich's signoff and the animated Fremantle logo and the generic credits. Why not tighten up the plug lists and make the affiliates that do news promos do them over the generics (and drop the network promos after the credits so they can do their beloved "CBS NewsChannel NewsCenter Action Eyewitness News at noon starts NOW!")?
-
[quote name=\'J.R.\' post=\'205058\' date=\'Dec 30 2008, 01:58 PM\']
/Isn't calling someone a "jerk" against the rules?
[/quote]
Your answer here.....
5. Distasteful Posts
Posts deemed to be offensive, in generally bad taste or inflammatory in nature, will subject the author to disciplinary action. Posting messages which are harrassing, insulting, belittling or derisive to other board member(s), or which incite personal attacks against other board member(s), will be considered grounds for disciplinary action. A pattern of excessive and gratuitous use of foul language shall constitute grounds for disciplinary action.
To topic now, please don't get rid of any games or Showcases offering a spa. I do not wish to be deprived of the opportunity to observe model skin.
-
No, Rich Fields does NOT have to mention the Bob Barker studio. It is a paean to a vain tyrant who is now gone.
"Get ready to match the stars." A short line like that is all you need to get the show started.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'205115\' date=\'Dec 30 2008, 06:48 PM\']
"Get ready to match the stars." A short line like that is all you need to get the show started.[/quote]
Won't that confuse the audience?
/why don't we do the same thing, but with gophers?
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'205115\' date=\'Dec 30 2008, 09:48 PM\']
"Get ready to match the stars." A short line like that is all you need to get the show started.
[/quote]
Absolutely correct. "Here it comes! Television's most exciting hour...." blah blah blah worked for how long on its own? Long, long time.
-
[quote name=\'Don Howard\' post=\'205117\' date=\'Dec 30 2008, 06:55 PM\'] [quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'205115\' date=\'Dec 30 2008, 09:48 PM\']
"Get ready to match the stars." A short line like that is all you need to get the show started.
[/quote]
Absolutely correct. "Here it comes! Television's most exciting hour...." blah blah blah worked for how long on its own? Long, long time. [/quote]How about: "Here it comes! From Television City in Hollywood, a fortune in fabulous prizes may go to these people today, if they know when The Price is Right!"?
It's sort of a hybrid of the original half-hour version opening spiel, and the current opening spiel.
-
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'205042\' date=\'Dec 30 2008, 02:39 AM\']But I'm not arguing that at all. I'm arguing against your point that solely because of it's age means it's good or somehow worthy of not being retired.[/quote]Except I haven't been doing that. I've been refuting your arguments, and waiting for you to come back with some sort of rebuttal. And instead I get ducking, topic changes and rhetorical dodges. It's to the point where I can't follow anything that you're saying, because your posts are all over the place.
Frankly, I still do.
No, you don't have anything won. You coin phrases like "intellectual tap-dancing" that have no meaning at all except to you because you want to appeal against experts. And worse yet is that you close with this:Either say what you really mean or don't say anything at all.
You should amend that to "Say what you mean, mean what you say, but in my case you must also read my mind."
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'205119\' date=\'Dec 30 2008, 10:41 PM\']
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'205042\' date=\'Dec 30 2008, 02:39 AM\']But I'm not arguing that at all. I'm arguing against your point that solely because of it's age means it's good or somehow worthy of not being retired.[/quote]Except I haven't been doing that. I've been refuting your arguments, and waiting for you to come back with some sort of rebuttal. And instead I get ducking, topic changes and rhetorical dodges. It's to the point where I can't follow anything that you're saying, because your posts are all over the place.[/quote]We must not be talking about the same thing, because I couldn't possibly be any more clear than I was just then. You haven't refuted anything. You just made a lame joke.
Getting back to the original point, dropping a game or two to free up time seems to be the best way to balance the time issues with the change in atmosphere to a less stuffy, more modern party-like show. The best way I see to get that is through more contestant interaction, more playings of longer (and often more popular) games and really making the Showcases memorable. I can only hope that someone in charge realizes that The Price Is Right's "history" and "tradition" can be it's biggest asset, but can also be it's biggest liability. How can the show (and its staff) ever move forward if they're preoccupied with looking back?
EDIT-Another good thing could be that with two fewer games to schedule, that might help alleviate some of the pressure the budget is apparently suffering under.
-
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'205134\' date=\'Dec 30 2008, 09:13 PM\']We must not be talking about the same thing, because I couldn't possibly be any more clear than I was just then. You haven't refuted anything. You just made a lame joke.[/quote]You couldn't possibly make this any easier for me, because you're illustrating my very point by your very lack of rigor. My comment, while made in jest, had a point. Every post of mine in the thread has had a point, even if you want to dismiss it as a "lame joke". (The very fact that you understood and attempted to "refute" my "joke" means it wasn't all that lame at all, because it illustrated my position. You haven't even been able to reliably do that.)
In every response you have posted, you have ducked or dodged those points that were directed squarely at you, which you realized because you replied, and yet you said nothing at all each time. You have at times said nothing, said several things, and simultaneously held conflicting opinions without a care in the world.
Do you actually read anything that someone else posts, or is this just your sandbox for random ramblings? If the latter is true, then stop the ride because I want to get off.
-
I've read my posts again. I've read your posts again. I'm not intentionally trying to be obtuse or anything, but it appears that I'm confused as to what you mean. All I'm saying at the end of the day is that:
1) The show would be better with four IUFBs and Pricing Games and one Showdown. (more interaction, better games, feeling less rushed)
2) I haven't decided whether I think one or two Showcases with one or two contestants would be best, but I'm leaning currently towards one and one, because one Showcase is usually not very desirable. I would like the secret bid idea proposed earlier if two contestants with one Showcase was used.
3) I don't think Contestants' Row is as important as you think it is. I think it's just a place where people make their $420s and $69s and $1337s or one dollar over someone else. I think it's a bit stale, in general.
4) IMO, the shorter games on the show are currently used to make sure that six games are played each day. (i.e. if they want to play Plinko and Pocket Change, they're going to need Double Prices and Most Expensive, also)
4a) IF TPIR went to 4 IUFBs and 4 Games they wouldn't need the quicker games as much, if at all.
4b) Even though the quick games may be "the truest tests of pricing skill", as you said, I don't think that the average viewer really gets excited by them. If The Powers That Be think along the same lines, they might think that since they don't need to play short games anymore to fill a six-game line-up, they no longer have an upside, so they'll stop playing them. I also think that if they were to stop playing Double Prices and Most Expensive and all the rest, the average viewer would not react negatively to the change.
5) When I made the "Just because something existed 30 years ago doesn't mean it should still exist now.", I specifically meant that if the show doesn't need to play quick games to stay on schedule, I don't see the harm in not playing them anymore. It may have been considered necessary back in the 70s, and if it isn't now, then age shouldn't be a determining factor in whether they continue to play the game. That's all I meant. This is where the confusion stems from, I believe, because I then (incorrectly) thought that you were saying that the age of a game should determine whether they keep it or not. I do dislike most of the quickies, but I do because they aren't interesting, not because they are old.
5a) Veering slightly off-course, when you made that reference to Logan's Run, I thought you were saying that "CarShark believes that old=bad in all cases all the time", which seemed extreme to me. I don't believe that at all, but I do believe that if you keep too many things the same for too long a time, it can make things feel a bit stale. I don't necessarily like the way Wheel of Fortune has progressed over the years gameplay-wise, but I do like the way they've modernized the set. Video walls, video scoreboards, digital puzzleboard. But the secret is that they did it one piece at a time, so more "conservative" fans didn't get overwhelmed. When urbanpreppie frequently posted here, he mentioned this often, as well. I don't see why TPIR doing the same would hurt it the way more "conservative" fans of the show think it would. In fact, I think it would better attract younger, more casual fans than the current collection of 20-odd-year-old electromechanical technology. During the time that the latest batch of Million Dollar Spectaculars were airing, TheKid over at GSN Boards noted that some of the older games, like Clock Game and Bonus Game didn't look fresh in high-definition. To me, that reflects badly on the show in a way the average viewer actually would notice.
I really hoped this cleared things up, Travis. I don't really understand how our discussion got to the point it has, because it certainly seems that we agree on more than we originally thought. :)
-
[quote name=\'Casey Buck\' post=\'204719\' date=\'Dec 25 2008, 10:45 PM\']
Unless CBS gives TPiR back a few minutes of commercial time (which has no chance in hell of happening), there's simply no way to prevent the show (with its current six game/six One Bid/two Showcase Showdown format) from being rushed.
Now, there are three possible options to change the format that would reduce the rushing, but none of them are pretty. They could either:
A) Eliminate Contestant's Row, and have the called-down contestants come up on stage, (like TNPiR'94)
B) Eliminate the Showcase Showdowns, and have the top two pricing game winners advance to the showcase (like the half-hour shows).
or, C) Play four pricing games and four One Bids, instead of six, and have two players in each Showcase Showdown, instead of three. (Five One Bids and five pricing games wouldn't work, because one Showcase Showdown would have two contestants, and one would have three, which would be awkward.)
[/quote]
(snip)
SHHHHHH!!! Don't give Freemantle any ideas! Don't do it! It's hazardous to the health of the game show genre!
Seriously, Drew's looking a lot better than he did this time last year. I really enjoyed watching the holiday shows this year. He's found his own way to interact with the contestants that's friendly, not robotic, and I still feel the show is in good hands with him at the helm. They tweaked the money prizes in a positive direction and rid themselves of some older games that needed to be retired a long time ago, and I'd say let's leave it at that. No disrespect to Roger intended here, and he is missed.
-
[quote name=\'DrJWJustice\' post=\'205347\' date=\'Jan 2 2009, 01:02 AM\']They tweaked the money prizes in a positive direction and rid themselves of some older games that needed to be retired a long time ago, and I'd say let's leave it at that.[/quote]
You make it sound here like they've retired a bunch of games this season. As far as I know, that isn't the case (although some of them certainly haven't been played in a while).
-
I fail to see where "some" = "a bunch."
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'205372\' date=\'Jan 2 2009, 01:45 PM\']I fail to see where "some" = "a bunch."[/quote]
And I'm not sure how it was supposed to be construed as anything else. Regardless, though, the notion is incorrect.
-
I'm pretty sure "some" is more than "few" but much smaller than "several" or "a bunch". What round of Words Have Meanings are we in? :)
I think it's unusual any time the show retires a game, since they are so loath to do so. They're more likely to mess with the rules, sometimes for better (Dice Game), sometimes not (Pass the Buck). It seems like they've been retiring more recently, and for reasons not readily apparent to me. Hit Me was gone early Season 35. Joker and Poker Game were both gone in Season 36, which still surprises me, after the whole Pricing Game Un-Survivor debacle that sprouted in the gs community towards the end of the season. Buy Or Sell just dropped off the face of the earth, it seems. I guess what makes their retirements more unusual or noteworthy is that they were all on the show for a while. Usually, when a game isn't working out, it's gone in a year or two. (Time Is Money, On The Spot) Hit Me suddenly became too confusing over 20 years after it debuted.
I'm kind of surprised that Card Game didn't get retired when they did all the fiddling with the ranges and starting values a couple years back. I'm still waiting for what Drew will say when a contestant pulls the $5000 card and stops immediately without drawing any cards and wins. :) Inflation has not been kind to this game. I thought low winning percentages would kill That's TOO Much! and my personal favorite, 1/2 Off, as well.