The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: adamjk on May 25, 2004, 11:07:34 PM
-
Does anyone know if Super Millionaire will be back for another run following tomorrow night?
-
No announcement yet.....ABC meets with the affiliates in 2 weeks....perhaps news then, but don't count on it.
-
Too soon to say. SM's ratings were down from February, but in just about every case were higher than the lead-in show. And it's not like ABC has all that many options, and Millionaire is cheap to make.
Two ideas to improve the ratings:
1. Schedule it at an earlier hour, similar to its time slots in 2000 and 2001. Millionaire is a family show, and they lost a large part of that audience by scheduling it at 10 PM every night.
2. Make it more likely for somebody to win big bucks. The questions got really difficult at $500K, and most contestants didn't have either the knowledge or enough lifelines to get them past that point (and the 3 Wise Men aren't really helping all that much. Either make the questions easier, or re-institute a second phone playoff round to get better qualified contestants on the show. You can't promote the idea that someone might with $10 million, and then have a show where it quickly becomes clear that no one stands a reasonable chance of doing so.
Better promotion might help as well ...
-
It depends on what happens in September most likely. If their new shows do well, the show may not be needed for November, if one or more of their shows tank early, they might pull them for part of November and do SM for another run. The ratings are down from February, but I've read May is actually the weakest sweeps month in the regular TV season (because of the weather, people tend to go out more in May than in November and February).
I do agree that the 10PM showings aren't the best for a show like this. Hovever, one of the reasons it was put there was because the affilates were complaining of the weak lead-ins to their local news, and if it helps them, that's what counts.
-
I may've gone haywire about my comment on the 10PM airings, but still if ABC wants to show SM, have it run at a decent hour like 8 PM on 1 or 2 nights per run while leaving the 10PM slots available for the other nights. As far as Sundays go, revert to 7 PM if it means not showing the ABC Sunday movie that day.
-
[quote name=\'leszekp\' date=\'May 25 2004, 11:31 PM\'] Either make the questions easier, or re-institute a second phone playoff round to get better qualified contestants on the show. You can't promote the idea that someone might with $10 million, and then have a show where it quickly becomes clear that no one stands a reasonable chance of doing so.
[/quote]
I think this is the best idea of em all....As tough as it is now to get picked for the show...weeding out the pack with another phone qualifier would seperate the wheat from the chaff a bit better...
After watching two players last night bail in the mid-tier questions, ABC must be kicking themselves... The slower pace editing of the show now isn't helping this....there isn't as much time to get to a player in the ring of fire who may have a better chance of getting in there...
Matt
-
[quote name=\'Craig Karlberg\' date=\'May 26 2004, 04:00 AM\'] I may've gone haywire about my comment on the 10PM airings, but still if ABC wants to show SM, have it run at a decent hour like 8 PM on 1 or 2 nights per run while leaving the 10PM slots available for the other nights. As far as Sundays go, revert to 7 PM if it means not showing the ABC Sunday movie that day. [/quote]
And counter 60 MINUTES? While the old grey mare ain't what she used to be, it's still a little formidable to stick SM up against. Just one man's opinion, though.
At the moment I can't remember who it was who said this in another thread, but SM doesn't work as a May sweeps show because of season finales and other big events (while there are some big events in November and February, networks tend to go all out for May). Personally, I would've waited for July or August before bringing it back after its good February tryout. And I wouldn't rule out SM coming back in August anyway (let's not even discuss November yet).
Doug -- and the countdown to 500 continues
-
After watching the finale, I agree with bringing back the second phone game. I really expected to see a $2.5 million win on this set of shows, but we didn't come close.
I don't agree with making the questions easier. Even $1 million is a lot to give away on a game show, so if they made it so easy that anyone could win the top prize, what would be the point? That kind of diminshes the achievement. It would have been exciting to see a really smart contestant play the upper tier with at least three lifelines. I don't think anyone in the two runs of shows even had one original lifeline left after $100,000, did they?
Part of the problem might be with the amounts of money we're dealing with. If I was on there and had even $500,000 in my pocket, I'd be hesitant about guessing on the $1 million question even if I thought I knew it. Certainly at $1 million I don't think I'd take the chance at all. I can't imagine what it would be like at $2.5 or higher. I know we said this about the show when it originally came on, but I think it's much more true now.
One thing that occured to me that they could do - move the second "safe" level to question 11 - make $500,000 the beginning of the "new demension" and make that a safe level. That might encourage more people to go for it once they get there. Or, is that too high a level to make it a safe haven?
The odd thing about this whole second run is it didn't seem a "magical" to me as the first run did - and I don't know why. Some of the excitement just seemed to be missing. Maybe it's because the show's biggest winner - "Bobo" - was the second or third contestant they ever had, and nobody seemed as memorable this time around.
Having said that, I really hope we'll see this again soon. It has the kind of tension and spontaneous humor that definately make it a worthwile hour. When Tuesday's "finger" question came up, for example (teasing part of the body), those kind of unexpected laughs make me yearn to see the show again.
Maybe third time's the charm for a big winner!
-
[quote name=\'leszekp\' date=\'May 25 2004, 11:31 PM\'] 2. Make it more likely for somebody to win big bucks. The questions got really difficult at $500K, and most contestants didn't have either the knowledge or enough lifelines to get them past that point (and the 3 Wise Men aren't really helping all that much. [/quote]
I can certainly see why questions are harder, but did anyone pick up on the fact that there hasn't been a single contestant who had one of their original three lifelines intact before attempting the $500k question?
-
[quote name=\'DrJWJustice\' date=\'May 27 2004, 12:24 PM\'] [quote name=\'leszekp\' date=\'May 25 2004, 11:31 PM\'] 2. Make it more likely for somebody to win big bucks. The questions got really difficult at $500K, and most contestants didn't have either the knowledge or enough lifelines to get them past that point (and the 3 Wise Men aren't really helping all that much. [/quote]
I can certainly see why questions are harder, but did anyone pick up on the fact that there hasn't been a single contestant who had one of their original three lifelines intact before attempting the $500k question? [/quote]
I have noticed that all throughout--anyone think that ABC might suggest to Davies & Co. to make the questions a little easier next series?
-
...or modify the qualifying process to get better contestants into the Hot Seat?
-
[quote name=\'uncamark\' date=\'May 27 2004, 01:03 PM\'] [quote name=\'DrJWJustice\' date=\'May 27 2004, 12:24 PM\'] [quote name=\'leszekp\' date=\'May 25 2004, 11:31 PM\'] 2. Make it more likely for somebody to win big bucks. The questions got really difficult at $500K, and most contestants didn't have either the knowledge or enough lifelines to get them past that point (and the 3 Wise Men aren't really helping all that much. [/quote]
I can certainly see why questions are harder, but did anyone pick up on the fact that there hasn't been a single contestant who had one of their original three lifelines intact before attempting the $500k question? [/quote]
I have noticed that all throughout--anyone think that ABC might suggest to Davies & Co. to make the questions a little easier next series? [/quote]
Considering the ton of money we're talking about at that level of play, I'd say no.
-
Marc Berman is reporting in today's Mediaweek daily Programming Insider that Super Millionaire will indeed return next season as a series of specials. However, I have yet to see any firm articles of confirmation from the network or any other source. While not stellar, SM's ratings have built considerably on its lead-ins.
-
My suggestion would be to keep the current scheduling of 5-7 programs on ABC during each of the "sweeps" months, but bring back about 10-15 of the recent top winners from the daily syndicated version as the contestants for these programs as they once did for a "Tournament of Champions" during the "regular" Millionaire's prime-time run on ABC.
These contestants would be on for the entire series during that particular "sweeps" month and 10 of them would start out in the "Fastest Finger" chairs (which were eliminated from the current syndicated version). Winner of the first "Fastest Finger" question plays the game, and then his empty FF chair would be filled by the next player in line for the next FF question, etc.
I would also make a slight change in the money progression and the guaranteed "plateau" amounts as follows:
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$5,000 (plateau)
$7,500
$10,000
$25,000
$50,000 (plateau)
$100,000
$250,000
$500,000
$1 million (plateau + 2 additional lifelines)
$2.5 million
$5 million
$10 million
(A little more logical progression, in my opinion -- I feel that with the current amounts, there is too big a jump from $100,000 to $500,000 from the 10th to the 11th question in the stack, while the current progression tends to run too slowly up to the $100,000 level.)
I'd also keep the current question difficulty -- more logical for "returning champions."
Michael Brandenburg
(Now if we could just keep Martha Stewart from messing things up here!)
-
[quote name=\'uncamark\' date=\'May 27 2004, 01:03 PM\']
I have noticed that all throughout--anyone think that ABC might suggest to Davies & Co. to make the questions a little easier next series? [/quote]
I stand by my earlier suggestion....Pick up the pace!
The show runs much slower than it used to. Too much time goes by just getting up to question 10, that's assuming the dolts that were lucky enough to get into the hotseat made it that far.
ms
-
[quote name=\'Michael Brandenburg\' date=\'May 27 2004, 02:47 PM\'] but bring back about 10-15 of the recent top winners from the daily syndicated version as the contestants for these programs as they once did for a "Tournament of Champions" during the "regular" Millionaire's prime-time run on ABC. [/quote]
What is it with you people wanting to see people who've already won obscene amounts of money try to win MORE obscene amounts of money?
(Peter Sarrett, you sit down. You too, Leszek. :))
The appeal of the show is that EVERYONE gets to play. Take that away, and you have a show very few people care about.
-
What is it with you people wanting to see people who've already won obscene amounts of money try to win MORE obscene amounts of money?
Yeah, if the public wanted that, there prolly would've been another ToC sometime during the original network run...aside from the generally disappointing results from that sole attempt, as you so accurately put it, the general public isn't interested in seeing big winners try and add to their more-than-substantial fortune.
Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious "Chuckie Baby")
-
What is it with you people wanting to see people who've already won obscene amounts of money try to win MORE obscene amounts of money?
It's exciting to see "the best of the best" play. I don't think it has anything to do with money.
What's more, you might actually get a better caliber player. Personality isn't everything, but the worst death knell that could have sounded for WWTBASM was three straight mid-level flame-outs to end the series.
BTW, UK Weakest Link did something similar -- winners from the daytime version were entered to play in the nighttime, higher-stakes version.
Curt
-
I watched Meredith's show the other day and saw three people get no further than a thousand after four easy questions. Why not make more of a competition by having the four easy questions fastest finger questions and whomever has the best time after that would win a thousand and get into the hot seat for the toughies?
-
/vitriol
I would take it that the format itself, is fine. The only reason we even had a millionaire for Super Mil last time around was because of the third tier lifelines. It's not that the questions were hard (face it, there is NO reason not to make it to $100k), it's the weak contestant pool. I've never seen a group so horrible as last night's flameouts. The trivia buff was the only shining spot of last night and the other guy with glasses who made it to 500k was extremely lucky on his part.
The question don't need to be dumbed down in the least. They're at an optimal level now. They are better than the original run of question which only became challenging at about $250K. And they are certainly on a better level than the syndie sets.
There's one solution to all this mess and it is indeed the 2nd elimination phone game.
We've had every format for phone contestant selection and we've seen what does and does not work. Eliminating the phone game just to throw in "variety" didn't net anything but early walkouts. Making it a 5 question, one call and you're in, format this time only gave the right to go on to those with the luck of a phone number early on the sheet from the ABC rep.
Granted, I might still be a little steamed for qualifying once and not getting a call back for the 2nd series, but, had I been selected, the 2nd level phone elimination might have weeded me out as quickly as anyone.
Sure, ABC and Davies couldn't afford to have someone win $5 mil or something every night of the series, but getting someone at least somewhere NEAR the third tier would have been more satifying.
It felt like I was watching a funeral on that last contestant. And "hope we'll be back real soon" from Regis wasn't all that uplifting (granted, he doesn't know whether it'll be picked up again).
The Idaho oral historian had such a great shot. I was one to bash Regis for trying to steer someone towards an answer until last night.
"Eric Menendez"
" Which one is NOT guilty..NOT guilty..."
"yeah, menendez"
"Are you sure? NOT guilty, right?"
But it's only easy if you know the answers, true.
/vitriol
I'll agree that the gargoyle question wasn't hard as much as just rather confusing. But most of you knew it, I am hopeful.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'May 27 2004, 05:33 PM\']What is it with you people wanting to see people who've already won obscene amounts of money try to win MORE obscene amounts of money?
(Peter Sarrett, you sit down. You too, Leszek. :))
The appeal of the show is that EVERYONE gets to play. Take that away, and you have a show very few people care about.[/quote]
Well, you don't hear weekend duffers saying, "They shouldn't let Tiger Woods play in tournaments anymore - he's already won an obscene amount of money, and I deserve a chance at some of that cash".
The whole rationale behind any television program, be it sitcom, sports, or game show, is for it to be entertaining so that lots of people will watch and they can sell commercial time to make money. Any show needs to do whatever it takes to attract that audience. Former game show winners have shown that they're capable of performing under pressure; even if you don't feel that they should be favored in the selection process (a point of view that I certainly understand, even if I don't necessarily agree with it ;), they shouldn't be denied the same opportunity everyone else has to be on the show. And while the WWTBAM Tournament didn't do so well, the J! TOC usually gets above-average ratings, so it's not the idea of a tournament per se that turns people off.
Just wish that there was a venue for former winners to compete in; would be interesting to see if there was an audience for that kind of competition. Looked for a while like "Grand Slam"was going to be that experiment, but by now there would have been an announcement if it were going to be on ABC this summer. For that matter, they had already backed off from the concept of former gameshow winners battling it out to a more generic "gameshow with balls" idea.
-
I'd like to see Bill Gates as a contestant on "The Apprentice."
-
[quote name=\'leszekp\' date=\'May 27 2004, 05:20 PM\'] Well, you don't hear weekend duffers saying, "They shouldn't let Tiger Woods play in tournaments anymore - he's already won an obscene amount of money, and I deserve a chance at some of that cash".
[/quote]
Any golfer willing to pony up the entrance fees can play in the tournaments leading up to and including the US Open. Any golfer who has proven his worth may attend Q-School in an effort to earn a PGA Tour card and start trying to win some of that scratch for themselves.
Your complaint seems to be that there is no Professional Game Show Contestant's tour.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'May 27 2004, 07:38 PM\']Any golfer willing to pony up the entrance fees can play in the tournaments leading up to and including the US Open. Any golfer who has proven his worth may attend Q-School in an effort to earn a PGA Tour card and start trying to win some of that scratch for themselves.
Your complaint seems to be that there is no Professional Game Show Contestant's tour.[/quote]
And anyone who wants to get on a gameshow has any number of current opportunities to do so, as long as they can beat out other potential contestants. I'm not sure what your argument is; is it that previous game show winners keep people who haven't been on a game show before from having a chance to win some money, and that isn't fair? Last time I checked, being on a game show wasn't an "inalienable right", and being better at something than someone else wasn't being unfair.
I have yet to hear a cogent, rational reason as to why former winners should recuse themselves from trying out for other shows. If they would make a better contestant than someone who has never been on a game show before, then it makes sense for the show to select them, and the issue of whether they've won before doesn't matter. The Tiger Woods simile was an attempt to show that the argument that "they've already won a lot of money" doesn't make the grade. It also sort of addresses the argument that if someone has won a competition before, people won't want to watch them again. In the UK, where repeat contestants are far more common than in the US, the ratings and profusion of game shows compared to the US suggests that isn't a problem. Most of the audience for game shows aren't fanatics like us, and won't recognize the occasional repeat contestant anyway - every face will be new to them.
I'm not complaining about the lack of a "Pro Game Show Tour"; more of a wistful regret, perhaps :). Regardless, there may or may not be an audience for a regular series of shows, but there might well be for a one-off "event".
-
The problem Super Millionaire is faced is probably less promoting the show before it started. There were last day commercial telling when it airs. That was the problem with "World Idol" and achieved 6.5 Million U.S. viewers.
-
I can certainly see why questions are harder, but did anyone pick up on the fact that there hasn't been a single contestant who had one of their original three lifelines intact before attempting the $500k question?
I think one of the reasons for this, is that because some of the contestants have used their lifelines prematurely. They think they know what the answer is, they use a lifeline, and then realize that the answer they thought was it is indeed it. They use the lifeline almost out of neccessity. If some people would just think things through more, maybe someone will get to the next dimension with at least 1 of the three original lifelines remaining. They have to remember that more often then not, your first instinct is often the correct one.
-
The questions started getting difficult at _$10,000_ -- you could get a (in other versions) tier-three question on question six! Don't let SM get Greed-itis. It's of no use to advertise a gigantic prize no one could ever think of winning.
Leszek: I think what the other person is saying is that it's not that it's just "pro game show contestants" (probably more "pro impress the contestant coordinator" types), but that anyone who gets the five qualifying questions right gets in the pool and that the process is (ostensibly) random as to who gets in.
Do you honestly think I could impress a contestant coordinator?
Contrast the SM model to TPiR, which has become next to unwatchable in a sea of "PICK ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" shirts by dullards who have no idea how to play the game.
-
[quote name=\'Craig Karlberg\' date=\'May 26 2004, 04:00 AM\'] As far as Sundays go, revert to 7 PM if it means not showing the ABC Sunday movie that day. [/quote]
There hasn't been a Sunday movie on ABC in a while (the Disney movie at 7:00 moved to Saturday nights), although I think ABC can do without America's Funniest Home Videos at 7:00 (or, if they decide to go up against The Simpsons, American Dreams, and Cold Case, show it at 8:00 in place of Extreme Makeover: Home Edition) for one or two sweeps nights. (9:00 is out of the question, especially when "rerun-free" Alias restarts there in January.)
-- Don
-
A Few more comments...
First off, I for one am glad SM did well enough the last two nights, considering it was a last minute drop in to replace Adam Corolla's Domestic Diva contest....there was no listing in the TV Guide, and ads promoting the show were hit or miss....and yet still viewers found the show.
Second, regarding contestants...aren't we in a damned if we do/damned if we don't arguement? When the show started five years ago, complaints were made that the contestant pool was demographically challenged...so Davies went out and fixed it with traditional contestant selection....you all remember how that turned out...
Now we're back to square one looking for contestants who get an honest to goodness fair crack at being on the show, yet at the same time, can show that they deserve to be there...
The format isn't broke, kids...but ABC sure is.... I guess there is a saving grace in ABC's woes, since if they were doing any better, SM would NEVER have seen the light of day!
matt
-
[quote name=\'tvwxman\' date=\'May 28 2004, 05:29 AM\'] Now we're back to square one looking for contestants who get an honest to goodness fair crack at being on the show, yet at the same time, can show that they deserve to be there...
[/quote]
That's just the reason to bring back that callback and 2nd level screening. Granted, the luck of the draw is still there, but the crappy players would most likely be weeded out of the lot.
Not perfect, but it beats the auditions.
-
Anyways, I'd say it will be back in November. I think the 10pm slot might be what the ratings problem is. But if it was moved to 8, then "idiots" watching the classic one on GSN would probably confuse it with the NEW one. So, 8pm is probably out of the question for SM ever!
-
Well, lemme see here. I think you're on to something.
They could not air it at 8PM ET, since it conflicts with E/C showings. That's the only time conflict I see.