-
DonD model Leyla Milani revealed last week on Sirius OUTQ's Derek and Romaine Show that Deal or no Deal is returning on NBC in February, contrary to previous reports that it wouldn't be on the grids until march... welcome to the world of game show crack...
-
[quote name=\'tomalhe\' date=\'Jan 9 2006, 12:15 PM\']DonD model Leyla Milani revealed last week on Sirius OUTQ's Derek and Romaine Show that Deal or no Deal is returning on NBC in February, contrary to previous reports that it wouldn't be on the grids until march... welcome to the world of game show crack...
[snapback]107152[/snapback]
[/quote]
Somehow I have to wonder if one of the Briefcase Girls is the most reliable source for this information. Is it possible they are taping in February for a March airing?
-
[quote name=\'tomalhe\' date=\'Jan 9 2006, 04:15 PM\']welcome to the world of game show crack...
[snapback]107152[/snapback]
[/quote]
So that's what musicman's been smokin'...
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Jan 9 2006, 02:37 PM\'][quote name=\'tomalhe\' date=\'Jan 9 2006, 12:15 PM\']DonD model Leyla Milani revealed last week on Sirius OUTQ's Derek and Romaine Show that Deal or no Deal is returning on NBC in February, contrary to previous reports that it wouldn't be on the grids until march... welcome to the world of game show crack...
[snapback]107152[/snapback]
[/quote]
Somehow I have to wonder if one of the Briefcase Girls is the most reliable source for this information. Is it possible they are taping in February for a March airing?
[snapback]107153[/snapback]
[/quote]
My guess is more than likely you're right. Unless they plan to air it before the Olympics, the earliest it could air would be 2/27/06. While that's a possibility, isn't that still part of sweeps?
Doug
-
As of what I know, they are taping in early February, supposedly the first week.
-
Mark my words : The moment the torch goes out, Howie goes on. The Following Night.
Why? What else does NBC have to bank on?
Sweeps ends March 2. Plenty of time for the girls.
-
[quote name=\'tvwxman\' date=\'Jan 9 2006, 04:37 PM\']Why? What else does NBC have to bank on?
[/quote]
A Very Special My Name Is Earl?
Sweeps ends March 2. Plenty of time for the girls.
That would get 4 nights in, the Friday would just be a little something extra for the kids. I could see that happening.
-
Claudia states on her yahoo group to look for episodes in March, and she's a reliable source.
-
Yes, scheduled to tape in February for March.
Randy
tvrandywest.com
-
[quote name=\'tvrandywest\' date=\'Jan 9 2006, 08:58 PM\']Yes, scheduled to tape in February for March.
Randy
tvrandywest.com
[snapback]107174[/snapback]
[/quote]
But will it be a paid audience again?
-
[quote name=\'cmjb13\' date=\'Jan 9 2006, 06:52 PM\']But will it be a paid audience again?
[snapback]107175[/snapback]
[/quote]
Don't know. It's up to the production company whether they want to work with CBS or stay with the outside firm they used before (I think the faces last taping looked familiar from Audiences Unlimited, but I can't keep them all straight). See if tix end up available at the CBS ticket hut or not. That will give you the answer.
Randy
tvrandywest.com
-
A little useless note:
While watching Karn Feud recently, I noticed at the end of the show where the Pizza Delivery guy shows up and gives away some pizza.
I believe said delivery guy works for Audiences Unlimited loading the audiences for various shows, including Feud.
-
Audience pizza delivery guy. And they say there's no way to break into show business!!
Randy
tvrandywest.com
-
But will it be a paid audience again?
[snapback]107175[/snapback]
"Paid audience"? (Pardon my ignorance...)
-
[quote name=\'MrBuddwing\' date=\'Jan 10 2006, 05:57 PM\']"Paid audience"? (Pardon my ignorance...)
[snapback]107263[/snapback]
[/quote]
There are companies in Hollywood (like the aforementioned Audiences Unlimited) who provide "audience members" to shows taped before same, who are actors being paid to act the part.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Jan 10 2006, 09:03 PM\'][quote name=\'MrBuddwing\' date=\'Jan 10 2006, 05:57 PM\']"Paid audience"? (Pardon my ignorance...)
[snapback]107263[/snapback]
[/quote]
There are companies in Hollywood (like the aforementioned Audiences Unlimited) who provide "audience members" to shows taped before same, who are actors being paid to act the part.
[snapback]107264[/snapback]
[/quote]
Talk about these paid audience members or actors making their "huge leap" to stardom. Hehe! Oh well, someone has to make a living in Hollywood. I'm sure they're nice or naughty to deal with.
-
[quote name=\'MrBuddwing\' date=\'Jan 10 2006, 05:57 PM\']"Paid audience"? (Pardon my ignorance...)
[snapback]107263[/snapback]
[/quote]
The password is SEARCH
http://gameshow.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7030&hl= (http://\"http://gameshow.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7030&hl=\")
-
[quote name=\'tvrandywest\' date=\'Jan 10 2006, 11:02 PM\'][quote name=\'MrBuddwing\' date=\'Jan 10 2006, 05:57 PM\']"Paid audience"? (Pardon my ignorance...)
[snapback]107263[/snapback]
[/quote]
The password is SEARCH
http://gameshow.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7030&hl= (http://\"http://gameshow.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7030&hl=\")
[snapback]107277[/snapback]
[/quote]
Thank you. As someone who's had the privilege of being an UNPAID studio audience member, I'm ... kinda disillusioned.
-
So you mean to tell me that the teacher's children that were in the audience, complete with signs (ala Let's Make a Deal) during the week were paid? :-D
(I know, it's far fetched.)
-
[quote name=\'NicholasM79\' date=\'Jan 11 2006, 12:44 AM\']So you mean to tell me that the teacher's children that were in the audience, complete with signs (ala Let's Make a Deal) during the week were paid? :-D
(I know, it's far fetched.)
[snapback]107292[/snapback]
[/quote]
Family and friends of contestants aren't paid (and the kids would be considered friends in this situation). Just everyone else. :)
The reason for doing this, of course, is because the tourists only want to do the shows they've heard of (your Leno, your Ellen, your "Idol," your "TPIR") and it's hard to fill seats for a new show, especially when you have the audience on camera. Also, paying for audiences, particularly groups, helps ensure that they get the audience that they want and not have a group of seniors in the audience for a sitcom about hip yuppie types.
In fact, the paid audiences aren't always actors--school groups are brought on in exchange for a payment to the school. I've heard that sitcom actors hate school groups because they're often hostile (most of the kids would be anywhere except sitting in a CBS Studio Center soundstage watching the filming of "Yes, Dear").
-
[quote name=\'uncamark\' date=\'Jan 11 2006, 08:47 AM\']I've heard that sitcom actors hate school groups because they're often hostile (most of the kids would be anywhere except sitting in a CBS Studio Center soundstage watching the filming of "Yes, Dear").
[snapback]107308[/snapback]
[/quote]
That would be funny to see:
Kevin James: "Hey, thanks for coming out to see us today..."
Kid: "Hey, you suck!"
-
[quote name=\'uncamark\' date=\'Jan 11 2006, 11:47 AM\']Family and friends of contestants aren't paid (and the kids would be considered friends in this situation). Just everyone else. :)
[/quote]
That's not a rules violation? I thought if someone appeared actively on camera, they had to receive, at the very least, a small stipend.
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'Jan 11 2006, 12:30 PM\']That's not a rules violation? I thought if someone appeared actively on camera, they had to receive, at the very least, a small stipend.
[snapback]107325[/snapback]
[/quote]
You'd be quite wrong.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Jan 11 2006, 12:35 PM\'][quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'Jan 11 2006, 12:30 PM\']That's not a rules violation? I thought if someone appeared actively on camera, they had to receive, at the very least, a small stipend.
[snapback]107325[/snapback]
[/quote]
You'd be quite wrong.
[snapback]107327[/snapback]
[/quote]
Actually, he'd be EXTREMELY wrong. Only professional performers must be compensated for their likeness and/or voice being exhibited. The rates (and a few exceptions to the rule - such as being seen in non-recreated actual news footage) are negotiated in collective bargaining between the producers and the talent unions.
Or are the people being arrested on COPS receiving residuals?!
Randy
tvrandywest.com
-
[quote name=\'uncamark\' date=\'Jan 11 2006, 11:47 AM\']The reason for doing this, of course, is because the tourists only want to do the shows they've heard of (your Leno, your Ellen, your "Idol," your "TPIR") and it's hard to fill seats for a new show, especially when you have the audience on camera.
[snapback]107308[/snapback]
[/quote]
Not only that, but not as many of the modern-day shows tape at the familiar studios of the 60s & 70's anymore (NBC Burbank, CBS TV City,...) or at studios just off of tourist-rich Hollywood Blvd (Vine Street Theater, Merv Griffin Theater,...many of these indie theatres are long gone) where tourists could trip over opportunities to see shows as they visited or toured the studios. Back in the 60's and 70's a good chunk of the shows were taped at the networks' east or west-coast studios, but then there were only 3 networks on TV as well.
Outside of the Big 4 shows on TV today (Millionaire, TPiR, WoF and J!) it's been rare to see any other game shows include a ticket plug within their show, mostly because by the time the shows air, taping is already over and most don't get renewed or they just used canned audiences that will literally applaud and hoot & holler on cue.
And for the shows that still air at prominent, easy-to-find studios (Hollywood Center, WB, Sony...), I would assume it's cheaper for the program's production company or for the studio themselves to "outsource" the jobs of ticket requests, and seat filling to companies like Audiences Unlimited, no?
And BTW, Randy, my wife and I have agreed that "Cops" is one of our favorite Comedy shows. :-P
-
[quote name=\'tvrandywest\' date=\'Jan 11 2006, 03:56 PM\']
Or are the people being arrested on COPS receiving residuals?!
[snapback]107328[/snapback]
[/quote]
I think the people arrested on COPS might receive something else than residuals if they land in jail, if you know what I mean.
-
Talk about these paid audience members or actors making their "huge leap" to stardom. Hehe! Oh well, someone has to make a living in Hollywood. I'm sure they're nice or naughty to deal with.
[snapback]107273[/snapback]
I know someone formerly in the LA area who was one of these people paid to give others (late world with Zach among other invites) the clap.
-
[quote name=\'tvrandywest\' date=\'Jan 11 2006, 03:56 PM\']Actually, he'd be EXTREMELY wrong.[/quote]
Ah. I stand corrected then. When I watch The People's Court, they run a disclaimer before the credits that states that "The plantiff and defendant have been paid from a fund for their appearance......". I thought it was an industry wide standard. Ah well, at least I know the answer now.
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'Jan 12 2006, 09:40 PM\']Ah. I stand corrected then. When I watch The People's Court, they run a disclaimer before the credits that states that "The plantiff and defendant have been paid from a fund for their appearance......". I thought it was an industry wide standard. Ah well, at least I know the answer now.
[snapback]107528[/snapback]
[/quote]
So you made that assumption based on the People's Court disclaimer?
Where do you get off bagging on xibit777 for doing the same based on a GSN interview with the Perfesser?
The password is "hypocrite". <ding!>
-
[quote name=\'MrBuddwing\' date=\'Jan 10 2006, 05:57 PM\']
But will it be a paid audience again?
[snapback]107175[/snapback]
"Paid audience"? (Pardon my ignorance...)
[snapback]107263[/snapback]
[/quote]
Randy: Would "non-union extras" be a fair description?
Or are the people being arrested on COPS receiving residuals?!
According to a producer I once worked with, the field producers on those shows would carry around a big wad o' bills, from which the "central character" would be offered an inducement to sign the release, so in a sense they were compensated.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Jan 13 2006, 12:51 AM\'][quote name=\'Modor\' date=\'Jan 12 2006, 09:40 PM\']Ah. I stand corrected then. When I watch The People's Court, they run a disclaimer before the credits that states that "The plantiff and defendant have been paid from a fund for their appearance......". I thought it was an industry wide standard. Ah well, at least I know the answer now.
[snapback]107528[/snapback]
[/quote]
So you made that assumption based on the People's Court disclaimer?
[snapback]107534[/snapback]
[/quote]
Speaking of which, can someone explain exactly how that disclaimer is supposed to be read? I recall hearing inteviews with Wapner in the past that seem to indicate that a judgment for the plaintiff results in the defendant paying the plaintiff what he's owed, minus the fund awarded to both litigants, while the disclaimer seems to indicate that the fund is subtracted from the judgment and then the REMAINDER is split evenly between the two litigants.
Can someone shed some light on this?
Doug
-
Randy: Would "non-union extras" be a fair description?
That nails it. But just to take the conversation further, while the "non-union extras" description is a perfect fit for the vast majority of these gigs, it wouldn't be totally accurate when applied to the few times that I've witnessed an audience wrangling company paying their folks in cold, hard cash as a special inducement. There's a fine line of legality that might be considered crossed when trying to classify these employees as independent contractors.
[quote name=\'SRIV94\' date=\'Jan 13 2006, 07:03 AM\']...the People's Court disclaimer... seems to indicate that the fund is subtracted from the judgment and then the REMAINDER is split evenly between the two litigants,
[snapback]107551[/snapback]
[/quote]
The inducement for the litigants to agree to bring these cases (which were originally filed in Small Claims Court) to television is the payment of the judge's award, plus added cash that can be split evenly by the two parties. The "fund" is always greater than the total amount being sought by the plaintiff. How much greater? It's negotiable; the "fund" is different for each case.
The most attractive part of the inducement is that, as the plaintiff, you will actually be paid. In real Small Claims cases winning the judgement is only the first step. The harder part is satisfying the judgement, a.k.a. getting the money from the defendant. That's where the "fun" begins for the "winner", as he usually has to hire an officer of the court in attempts to recover from the "loser's" bank accounts, by garnishing wages, or seizing property.
Randy
tvrandywest.com
-
[quote name=\'tvrandywest\' date=\'Jan 13 2006, 11:35 AM\']
The most attractive part of the inducement is that, as the plaintiff, you will actually be paid.
Randy
tvrandywest.com
[snapback]107557[/snapback]
[/quote]
Which means, since there's a paid winner and a non-paid loser, it's a game show.
I fully expect "PeoplesCourtMan" to begin half-baked show summaries today.
-
I'm still not sure I get it (sorry, Randy).
Let's say the award to the plaintiff is $200, and the "fund" is $500. Question 1: Is that $500 changing hands ($200 from the fund, the rest split), or $700 ($200 from the defendant, the rest split)? Question 2: Would some (all?) losing *defendants* still end up with more money than they had when they arrived?
-
[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' date=\'Jan 13 2006, 12:22 PM\']I'm still not sure I get it (sorry, Randy).
Let's say the award to the plaintiff is $200, and the "fund" is $500. Question 1: Is that $500 changing hands ($200 from the fund, the rest split), or $700 ($200 from the defendant, the rest split)? Question 2: Would some (all?) losing *defendants* still end up with more money than they had when they arrived?
[snapback]107584[/snapback]
[/quote]
Okay.
The "fund" is set before the case. So, say the dude is suing for $1000, and the fund is set at $1200. The two possible outcomes:
JUDGEMENT FOR PLAINTIFF: Plaintiff gets $1100 (the $1000 plus half of the remainder), defendant gets $100.
JUDGEMENT FOR DEFENDANT: Plaintiff and defendant split the $1200, each receive $600.
So, yeah, everyone goes away with something regardless of the outcome.
-
[quote name=\'tvwxman\' date=\'Jan 13 2006, 10:45 AM\']Which means, since there's a paid winner and a non-paid loser, it's a game show.
[snapback]107558[/snapback]
[/quote]
Doesn't that make GONG or STAR SEARCH game shows as well?
If yes, I'll gladly change my name to GongShowMan and start half-baked recaps of 30-year-old <<Chuckie Baby>>stuff<<end/Chuckie Baby>>. :)
EDIT: Geez. GONG and FF mark their 30th anniversaries this year. Suddenly I feel very old.
Doug
-
Thanks, Chris. That was what I suspected the setup was, but I had some doubt about the defendant getting paid even if he lost.
-
[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' date=\'Jan 13 2006, 12:22 PM\']I'm still not sure I get it (sorry, Randy).
[snapback]107584[/snapback]
[/quote]
The evil genius, Prof Lemon, has it right with his $1200 example.
JUDGEMENT FOR PLAINTIFF: Plaintiff gets $1100 (the $1000 plus half of the remainder), defendant gets $100.
JUDGEMENT FOR DEFENDANT: Plaintiff and defendant split the $1200, each receive $600.
Randy
tvrandywest.com