-
Based on the promos you've seen, etc...how long do you think DoND will last? I say 5 days and done, based on the fact the game has no meat to it at all.
-
5 eps. This show is a lot of glitz wrapped around zero game. NBC had no patience with LMaD. 5 and out.
-
Some shows may not be self contained, so in that aspect, it might stand a better chance.
Plus since they are airing back to back and burned off in one shot, rather than scattered over several weeks, that's also a plus.
But my hunch says it's pulled after 3.
We shall see.
-
I think people will certainly tune in to the first few episodes to see what all of the hype and glitz is about, but, once people see it's essentially a long, drawn-out version of LMAD (which probably gets quite boring once the big money is out of the picture!), I expect the masses to tune out pretty quickly.
I'd like the show to succeed, sure, but I suspect this five-episode run will be its last (in the US, at least).
Anthony
-
I don't think they'll pull out after three-- it's not like we're in sweeps. But unless it REALLY takes off, the show probably won't go past the original five.
-
I don't think we're being cynical or jaded when we all seem to predict doom. I'd love for it to succeed, but all the flags are up in my head saying this run is it for the show.
-Jason
-
I'm going to be bold and say it's pulled before its first airing.
-
I'm going to go way out on a limb and say the show gets a second run as a special event in the spring.
I believe the show has a chance to attract some viewers during a quiet TV week before Christmas. Almost nothing will be new except for Christmas specials.
Most likely, the show will peak in viewership with the second or third episode, but it may hang on to enough viewers to get one more go-round.
Admittedly, most of this is pure hope. But what better time of the year to hope?
Curt
-
If this were on ABC I'd be optimistic about its chances for a second run to fill a hole somewhere.
Unfortunately, it's on NBC, what looks to be the network least friendly to a game show format right now. It's gonna take some buzz or a ratings surprise for it to return. And with the leadup to the holiday weekend, the ratings are more than likely going to decrease as the week goes on.
-
There was another game show, several years ago, that really didn't have a lot of game to it. It was just a series of questions, and after hearing each one the player decided whether to answer it or leave with any monies they had accumulated to that point.
It seems to have worked out fairly well.
Would you people JUST ONCE wait until a show AIRS before preaching gloom and doom?
-
Not much game? That describes a LOT of game shows, some of which have done pretty well. At least DoND sounds like it has some suspense.
Let the ratings tell the story. I think NBC still kinda needs a hit...they have "My Name is Earl" and "The Office", but they're still in 3rd as a network, last time I checked.
Unless this show does worse than Martha's "Apprentice", then there should be some hope.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Nov 28 2005, 11:10 PM\']There was another game show, several years ago, that really didn't have a lot of game to it. It was just a series of questions, and after hearing each one the player decided whether to answer it or leave with any monies they had accumulated to that point.
It seems to have worked out fairly well.
Would you people JUST ONCE wait until a show AIRS before preaching gloom and doom?
[snapback]103429[/snapback]
[/quote]
Nothing wrong with discussion of the future of this show. That's what we're here to do; discuss.
Interesting you make the millionaire comparison, though. That show had the suspense that DonD supposedly has...But it also had intelligence and playalong factor. Making that comparison, DonD is 1/3 of what WWtbaM is. Unless you think picking your own number is playalong factor, then it's 2/3.
It's one thing to be positive about the future of gameshows, as perhaps we all should try to be. It's another thing to pretend a presented format is a good idea, whan it's not.
Bottom line is that it's a glorified lottery show and nothing more.
-
[quote name=\'nWo_Whammy\' date=\'Nov 28 2005, 08:25 PM\']Nothing wrong with discussion of the future of this show. That's what we're here to do; discuss.
Bottom line is that it's a glorified lottery show and nothing more.
[snapback]103435[/snapback]
[/quote]
I don't disagree. But I think there's a difference between saying that and saying it's gonna be pulled after 3 of the 5 eps that have already been shot.
-
i'm in the camp that thinks that running this 5 days in a row .... is brilliant marketing .
Yes, it's a no-brainer show. But yes, there are A LOT of playalong opportunities for the home audience (much like WWTBAM)... and running the show daily for a week will give the audience an opportunity to jump on the bandwagon to watch, IF NBC plays into the momentum.... Something ABC did wonderfully back in August 1999.
Running this weekly for a month wouldn't give NBC that opportunity. And, Like WWTBAM's first run, it's being run during a week where original episodes of everything else are few and far between. That helps to give NBC something original to advertise....
Ad : "Last night, 12 Million people watched Joe Schmo turn down $300,000, only to win $1. What would you have done? Find out tonight, when one of these 200 people get asked the most imp. question of their lives : (Cue Clip from Howie) "Deal.....or no Deal?".
My Prediction : Ratings start okay, pick up through the week, and it gets a weekly run by February. Cause NBC doesn't have much else to bank on.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Nov 28 2005, 11:30 PM\'][quote name=\'nWo_Whammy\' date=\'Nov 28 2005, 08:25 PM\']Nothing wrong with discussion of the future of this show. That's what we're here to do; discuss.
Bottom line is that it's a glorified lottery show and nothing more.
[snapback]103435[/snapback]
[/quote]
I don't disagree. But I think there's a difference between saying that and saying it's gonna be pulled after 3 of the 5 eps that have already been shot.
[snapback]103436[/snapback]
[/quote]
True. But I've seen 3 of the 5 episodes. Granted not in edited form.
I hope I'm wrong.
-
[quote name=\'cmjb13\' date=\'Nov 29 2005, 08:34 AM\']True. But I've seen 3 of the 5 episodes. Granted not in edited form.
I hope I'm wrong.
[snapback]103464[/snapback]
[/quote]
I'm hoping the editing staff at Endermol USA can make the final cuts smooth to watch. Unlike LMAD'03, the editing was choppy and there were frequent voice-over inserts.
Hopefully the presentation will have a live, natural feel. Doesn't have to be overly-dramatic like Fear Factor.
-
What I'm really hoping for is that it just goes into syndication. Highly unlikely I know, but I think the format they have now is better for syndication. Also, the syndication version might be a bit more exciting. The payout would possibly be $100,000 or $200,000, possibly $250,000 like in the UK version. You won't have people risking $500,000 on a 50/50 shot for a million with $100 left with it, but you have a chance of seeing someone risking $100,000 on a 50/50 shot for either $2(0/5)0,000 or $100. I just feel this show would fare better daily, but I'm expecting great things on NBC. They are plugging the hell out of it, I've even heard about some radio ads for it. There are few shows more exciting than this. So what if it's not the most intelligent show. Most people on NBC see people eat bull testicles for $50,000. I doubt they're going to lose a great deal of people on a game of luck and guts.
-
All of the quibbles about "DOND" are legitimate. Yet the damn thing has been successful in almost every country it's been on.
Granted, just because a format is big elsewhere doesn't mean it'll be big here ("I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here!", anyone?), but NBC's doing exactly what ABC did with "WWTBAM"--give it big play in a dead period for programming, with no major challenges. The big surprise here is if it *doesn't* get any sampling.
-
[quote name=\'itiparanoid13\' date=\'Nov 29 2005, 08:07 AM\']Most people on NBC see people eat bull testicles for $50,000.
[snapback]103470[/snapback]
[/quote]
Hell, there are people out there who actually _pay_ for the "privledge". :)
-
I've been copying several different versions of this show for some traders (Dutch, German, especially Australian) and I think, if NBC does it right, it could be a hit. I think it would be a bigger prime access hit though, as the Australians air it with a $200K top prize at 5 or 5:30 in the afternoon, and it's been working there for some time.
But nonetheless, there is a lot of game on this show. Just watching a few episodes this past turkey week, I've had a lot of mouth-dropping moments. The "WTF Do They Think They're Doing?!" statement runs through mine and the fiancee's head a lot.
It's a good show because there is the possibility of many split-second moments where the aforementioned Joe Schmo could lose everything. I look forward to it, and my bet says that if the show is well-done, it will be a hit.
(I only wish that our version could have the contestants open the cases, but that's a minor quibble.)
-
[quote name=\'cmjb13\' date=\'Nov 29 2005, 08:34 AM\'][quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Nov 28 2005, 11:30 PM\'][quote name=\'nWo_Whammy\' date=\'Nov 28 2005, 08:25 PM\']Nothing wrong with discussion of the future of this show. That's what we're here to do; discuss.
Bottom line is that it's a glorified lottery show and nothing more.
[snapback]103435[/snapback]
[/quote]
I don't disagree. But I think there's a difference between saying that and saying it's gonna be pulled after 3 of the 5 eps that have already been shot.
[snapback]103436[/snapback]
[/quote]
True. But I've seen 3 of the 5 episodes. Granted not in edited form.
I hope I'm wrong.
[snapback]103464[/snapback]
[/quote]
Out of curiosity, since you've seen 3 of the 5, why are you worried about the show?
If anything, I see this more as a pilot for syndication if anything.
-
A lot depends on NBC's expectations I think. It is Mid-December, and most shows on the other networks are going to be in reruns, plus it is in the middle of the holiday season, so they may be expecting OK, but not gangbuster ratings. If they have a decent sampling with good 18-49's and the ratings hold steady or increase throughout the week, it might come back for another run later on in March or something like that (NBC's winter/spring schedule is going to be messed up as it is because of the Olympics in February).
If NBC brings it back as a weekly in the spring, there are a couple of options: If Fear Factor's revamp tanks on Tuesday nights, you could see it go to that slot, or possibly Wednesday nights at 8 as cannon fodder against American Idol (There are rumors that Fox is moving AI to a Wednesday performance/Thursday results cycle this season because Fox needs more help those nights). Let's see how the first run goes however.
-
I'd like to believe at least a second run of 5 episodes will come to fruition, possibly during the summer of 2006. In reality, though, I don't believe that, unless its ratings get into the top 15 in the Nielsens making it at least NBC's second highest rated primetime program, that it will run past its original 5 episodes. *sigh* :(
-
[quote name=\'nWo_Whammy\' date=\'Nov 28 2005, 11:25 PM\']Bottom line is that it's a glorified lottery show and nothing more.
[snapback]103435[/snapback]
[/quote]True as it may be, there was once another huge hit show with the word Deal in the title that relied mostly on luck. You saying that LMaD was a glorified lottery show too?
I tell ya, some of you are making this worldwide phenomenon of a game look no better than Martha's Apprentice.
-
[quote name=\'whammy5000\' date=\'Nov 30 2005, 01:18 AM\']I tell ya, some of you are making this worldwide phenomenon of a game look no better than Martha's Apprentice.
[/quote]
...And your point is? Braindead game for a braindead audience, apparently.
Let's Make a Deal at least had a handful of games that required you to price items, or have some knowledge of something (foreign currencies, etc.) DOND is no better then a glorified version of the Wisconsin Lottery Moneygame, bar none, one of the worst gameshows ever.
-
Mark, with all respect, just WATCH the show first. So what if it seems like a glorified lottery game. If that's the case, so was Treasure Hunt, which was a pretty enjoyable show.
We finally get a new show, and you guys still want to complain. If you really want another run of "Meet My Folks", be my guest. At least NBC is going for a traditional game show, without any reality gimmicks.
-
To call DoND "braindead" suggests you're looking but not seeing, it's a show with hidden depth. Theory and strategy fans will have a field day (yes, really), and bank offers are pitched in such a way to encourage discussion (before you ask: offers are worked out to a formula which spits out an upper and lower boundary. Depending on psychological factors (is the player looking confident? Who is having the better run of luck? Has the player rather stupidly revealed how much they're hoping to take away?) the Banker picks a value towards one of the boundries).
-
Random comment: looks like NBC has chosen their slate of contestii for DoND from the same stable as Dog Eat Dog...no "real people" who look like...well, me, the lady upstairs, or the mailman. Disappointing. What harm would there have been to do some kind of phone game, or one contestant on each show from each of the 50 states who compete in even a luck-based game to pick a case?
I know the game proper takes zero booksmarts, but it would have been nice to see Earl from Idaho take home a few hundred Gs.
2 cents.
-
[quote name=\'mitchgroff\' date=\'Nov 30 2005, 09:32 AM\']What harm would there have been to do some kind of phone game, or one contestant on each show from each of the 50 states who compete in even a luck-based game to pick a case?
[snapback]103544[/snapback]
[/quote]
The Capital One $10,000 sweepstakes/contest may be just that, if the plans are still on the table.
The promo that howie cut didn't mention any specifics.
-
[quote name=\'mitchgroff\' date=\'Nov 30 2005, 06:32 AM\']Random comment: looks like NBC has chosen their slate of contestii for DoND from the same stable as Dog Eat Dog...no "real people" who look like...well, me...
[snapback]103544[/snapback]
[/quote]
I don't know what *you* look like, but I'd like to respond.
I worked DoND and among the several old friends on that staff with whom I've toiled many times before was the lovely Judy Helm. Judy was the Producer in charge of selecting and working with the contestants and their families for DoND, and we talked about the specific challenges she faced in casting this show.
Do you want a dose of reality on reality TV?
First, know that Judy is a graduate of the Goodson-Todman empire who has worked her way through the contestant casting trenches for literally decades. There may be nobody better at filling the the Exec Producers' and network's/distributor's needs. The job is not easy.
To your point on appearance, the thinking at the programming level is that America is not interested in seeing people who are not somewhat photogenic. It's a visual medium, and it's all about entertainment. The contestants on game and reality shows are the stars of the show and they must be emotionally accessible and likeable; appearance is part of that package. No contestant coordinator or producer is going to submit non-photohenic prospects to their bosses. Lower points on appearance can be compensated for by personality traits and other factors, but I expect you will never see anyone who is difficult to look at. And that's no different than the generic but pleasant faces of strangers you see in picture frames when you buy them at Target.
But believe it or not, the hardest part of casting DoND was finding people who express their on-going internal decision-making dialogue very naturally, have up-beat attitudes, AND have relatives and friends who could do the same. They all need to have an exuberant and fun chemistry when they interact. Beyond that, the story behind the relationships of the contestants' friends helps to make it all interesting viewing. Remember, this is a show that makes an hour out of what would be a three minute segment on TPiR or LMAD. It's all hinges on casting contestants whom the home viewer can relate to, care about, and root for... for a long stretch of time.
It's about commerce, not community service. There is no heavenly bestowed right to appear on entertainment TV. But even the most "plain" looking people can be welcomed with open arms by contestant coordinators if they are naturally expressive and enthusiastic, and have an interesting story about themselves. Even in the few seconds that Trebeck speaks with the contestants on Jeopardy! almost all of them are able to project some kind of personality, style or positive image. None say "I've auditioned for your crappy show a dozen times and you sons of bitches have always blown me off. Well I'm here now and plan to walk away with all of your damn money!" Well, none until Matt auditioned! ;-P
If somebody feels they MUST appear on television and can't project that kind of personality, I suggest thinking about very unique sideshow skills, news programming, or perhaps shows like "Cops". Otherwise you're relegated to the Jerry Springer and Maury tier. And apparently there's no shortage of people who will stop at nothing for their hour on the tube!
Randy
tvrandywest.com
-
I stand corrected! I think the endless GSN reruns of Dog Eat Dog have caused my belief in "contestantship" to decline rapidly! I don't have any personal beef with anyone about being a contestant, though...you'd have to pay me a lot more than $25K to play naked darts.
-
[quote name=\'mitchgroff\' date=\'Nov 30 2005, 11:19 AM\']...you'd have to pay me a lot more than $25K to play naked darts.
[snapback]103552[/snapback]
[/quote]
Send a picture, and I'll give you an estimate!!!
Randy
tvrandywest.com
-
[quote name=\'Brig Bother\' date=\'Nov 30 2005, 06:22 AM\']To call DoND "braindead" suggests you're looking but not seeing, it's a show with hidden depth. Theory and strategy fans will have a field day (yes, really), and bank offers are pitched in such a way to encourage discussion [/quote]
All true, but that doesn't change the fact that as a contestant, the game requires absolutely no ability whatsoever to play, nor does it reward ability in any way. It's a blind guessing game. It's a slickly produced blind guessing game, and I get that as a viewer, it offers much in the way of gauging human behavior and decision making, and therefore may very well be an interesting program. But honestly, LMAD or Treasure Hunt (two shows that I'm not fond of) have more entertaining elements to them than this does.
As a theory and strategy fan, I was fascinated by the one episode I saw, but I don't see any way I'm going to be fascinated on a regular basis when it's just minor variations on the same thing. Still, I'm not about to guess the success or failure of the operation except to say that it's nearly impossible that they'll cancel it in the middle of its five-episode run.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Nov 30 2005, 07:44 PM\']All true, but that doesn't change the fact that as a contestant, the game requires absolutely no ability whatsoever to play, nor does it reward ability in any way. It's a blind guessing game. It's a slickly produced blind guessing game, and I get that as a viewer, it offers much in the way of gauging human behavior and decision making, and therefore may very well be an interesting program. [/quote]
I think you hit the nail on the head here. Deal or No Deal is in many ways a blank canvas for the viewer to project themselves upon.
I think the nearest televisual equivilent of DoND is televised poker - I don't think that LMaD and Treasure Hunt are fair comparisons really from the descriptions I've read. They're games of dumb luck, this is a game of luck and decision making based on utility and the information you have presented to you.
There are countries where the show hasn't gone down too well - they tried it twice in Germany and neither were much of a success for example, so there's no guarantee that it will be a success for you. I'm wondering if here's anything to be learnt from the versions that haven't been a success?
The British version had a lot of naysayers when it began, but a lot of them have come round now.
-
[quote name=\'Brig Bother\' date=\'Nov 30 2005, 03:24 PM\']I think the nearest televisual equivilent of DoND is televised poker - I don't think that LMaD and Treasure Hunt are fair comparisons really from the descriptions I've read. They're games of dumb luck, this is a game of luck and decision making based on utility and the information you have presented to you.
[/quote]
"Door #1, or Door #2?" Dumb luck; yet you make a decision. I think Let's Make a Deal is the best way to compare it to; yet from the looks of things, is a step down.
I know people are going to tell me to shut up, and watch; but I would rather have another 13-week run of The $50,000 Climax then have a "studio" game show presented that is of seemingly poor quality.
-
Whether or not it's a good game is probably of little significance: I remember "Millionaire," "Greed" and "The Chamber" all being water cooler topics of conversation the night after the shows air.
Imagine if on night one, the player is left with a penny, $1,000 and $1 million. Up comes an offer of $340,000. I can just see people all over the country discussing the outcome on their work breaks the next day. Those who haven't seen the show will tune in to see what the fuss is about, and interest will build.
Then again, if night one has the final three as a penny, a dollar and $100, with a bank offer of $40, nothing can be done. ("Ooh, forty bucks. Lemme think about that. Howie, do you have the penny on you if that's what I win?")
The fact that the show has brought about so much discussion about it before it even airs is likely just what the suits at NBC want. Sure, it's all about expected value and so forth, but that can still make for an exciting game and exciting experience.
If the show paves the way for more game shows down the line, where's the bad?
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'Nov 30 2005, 08:30 PM\']"Door #1, or Door #2?" Dumb luck; yet you make a decision. I think Let's Make a Deal is the best way to compare it to; yet from the looks of things, is a step down.
[/quote]
But you're missing the point entirely. The big decisions to be made are the choices as to whether to play on or not given the information presented to you, the amount you're being offered to quit the game on the basis of what you might have, the amount this money means to you as a person, at what point it's not worth risking any more and whether you might do anyway. The case opening is, in fact, relatively unimportant.
My point about comparing it to poker still stands because basically I've seen enough (http://\"http://www.bothersbar.co.uk/weekendspecials/dealornodeal.htm\") to know what I'm on about. (http://\"http://www.bothersbar.co.uk/weekendspecials/dealworld.htm\")
"Simple" does not mean "stupid".
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'Nov 30 2005, 12:30 PM\']"Door #1, or Door #2?" Dumb luck; yet you make a decision. I think Let's Make a Deal is the best way to compare it to; yet from the looks of things, is a step down.
[/quote]
Except LMAD is "take $500 or pick a door", where this is "take $500 or pick a door, but here's a chart of what's behind the doors so you can try to gauge whether that's a good deal or not."
But I don't expect you to see this, since you're so hellbent on being pissed at the world that you won't give this even a small chance.
I know people are going to tell me to shut up, and watch
Well, the former, maybe. Frankly, if you've decided you're going to hate it, I'd rather you didn't watch, because all you're going to do is filter out the bits you didn't like and harp on them, even if you have to go over the show frame-by-frame to find something.
but I would rather have another 13-week run of The $50,000 Climax then have a "studio" game show presented that is of seemingly poor quality.
[snapback]103558[/snapback]
Except the quality of the production does in fact look quite high, which history has shown can greatly aid a concept that doesn't have strong gameplay going for it. (A certain game show featuring little red monsters comes to mind.)
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' date=\'Nov 30 2005, 12:39 PM\']Sure, it's all about expected value and so forth, but that can still make for an exciting game and exciting experience.
[/quote]
And the haters are operating under the assumption that everyone can easily figure out what the expected value is at a moment's notice. I will go back to my standard argument of "if you can keep a cool head under TV lights, live pressure, and 47 other sources of adrenaline, and do that math, more power to you, but you better have actually BEEN in that situation before you raise your hand."
I read Bother's comment about how the bank offer is computed with much interest. I LIKE that it's not wholly a mathematical formula, that they leave some wiggle room in there based on how the Banker is gauging the emotions of the players and those with close ties to them. For me (and I'm only speaking for me), THAT will add some playalong factor to the show, watching and trying to figure out if the Banker is gonna try to lowball the player or sweeten the deal.
I'm excited. It's still not a game I would ever play on a Friday night for funsies, with no real money involved, but I think it's going to make for entertaining television. I just hope it catches on.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Nov 30 2005, 06:03 PM\']And the haters are operating under the assumption that everyone can easily figure out what the accepted value is at a moment's notice. I will go back to my standard argument of "if you can keep a cool head under TV lights, live pressure, and 47 other sources of adrenaline, and do that math, more power to you, but you better have actually BEEN in that situation before you raise your hand."
I read Bother's comment about how the bank offer is computed with much interest. I LIKE that it's not wholly a mathematical formula, that they leave some wiggle room in there based on how the Banker is gauging the emotions of the players and those with close ties to them. For me (and I'm only speaking for me), THAT will add some playalong factor to the show, watching and trying to figure out if the Banker is gonna try to lowball the player or sweeten the deal.
I'm excited. It's still not a game I would ever play on a Friday night for funsies, with no real money involved, but I think it's going to make for entertaining television. I just hope it catches on.[snapback]103572[/snapback]
[/quote]
Well put. Kudos to you! You hit the nail on the head with that one. Those are exactly my thoughts on the show, I couldn't have put it any better.
Quite frankly, I'm pleased when I see ANY classic or new traditional game show formats that make it on the air, even if the game is based a lot on luck. And yes, a game show that is most dependent on luck can't make that point any more obvious then when the word LUCK is in their title, but PYL is just as fun and fresh to watch today as it was 20 years ago. I have optimistic thoughts for DOND. I'm also just *bleep* happy to see a new game show idea put back on network TV.
-
My main worry is not that it's a dumb luck show--it's that it's a dumb luck show that lasts for an hour. More specifically, I've seen how much stretching and reiteration they did on Greed, Twenty One, and the like. Yeah, you've got to build suspense for the big decision, but Greed would build suspense on *anything*, just so long as it put off the next question until after the break/the next episode/the heat death of the universe.
Not that he intended this reaction, I'm sure, but when someone who worked on the show says:
[quote name=\'tvrandywest\' date=\'Nov 30 2005, 01:44 PM\']Remember, this is a show that makes an hour out of what would be a three minute segment on TPiR or LMAD.[/quote]
...I worry.
But I will watch it, and see for myself.
-
I've been able to see some of the UK shows, and my take is that it's great drama. Will this be able to get the same drama? I don't know. I will say this -- that even with 250K on the line, it's up to the contestant when to make the deal, and there are some great episodes where timing and, in all bluntness, brass balls got some contestants more money than others. That is what is so fun about the show -- how far are you going to go -- and if you deal too early, how sheepish are you going to look if you gave away the big prize?
Granted, the pacing was a bit slow for the UK show, but I think Noel's done a fine job hosting the programme.