The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: CarShark on November 16, 2008, 05:40:04 PM
-
Let me just preface this by saying I like the show as it is. I love Drew's silly entrances. I like the looser atmosphere. I like the more modern music. The green screen is nice...when they execute it well and have moving images. The Showcases...well...I liked them in the beginning, but now they're just strange. Anyways...
A couple days ago, someone posted a clip (http://\"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lA8UZ1T9YXk\") of the January 6, 2003 episode of Price. IMO, it's a pretty good one. It's not THE best, but it has special importance to me because it's the first episode of the show that I've ever watched. I had just gotten my tape recorder as a gift, so I decided to tape it since I had never watched it before. I liked it a lot, so I watched it over and over again for two weeks, and kept taping for a year after that.
So a contestant named Maricella won the first IUFB plus $500 for a perfect bid. (She called it "gas money".) She followed Bob to the turntable and collected her bonus. Bob pointed to one of the doors, Maricella bent forward, and saw it open to...a trip to Alaska. As the appropriate music played, I saw the most dejected look on a contestants face I'd ever seen. Especially since she hadn't even played the game yet. Then I saw her mouth "I wanted a car." I thought that was odd, but didn't think much of it. Until it happened again before Cliff Hangers. And again before Squeeze Play. A polite but pained smile and a look of utter confusion. I was starting to wonder what I liked about this show so much.
Where I'm going this is connecting it to another thread right here (http://\"http://gameshow.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16742\"), where I mentioned that Let 'em Roll was played first. I mentioned that I liked that pricing games were being moved out of slots where they "belong" into new ones, when Steve said that the show was only going to start with car or cash games. I was confused, because I was only thinking in terms of variety, but again I didn't think much of it.
Now that I've seen a couple weeks worth of shows, I can say that I do still like seeing games coming up first when they traditionally haven't. However, I also think I'm feeling the show starting to shift from being about several elements (the crazy contestants, affable host, funny announcer, beautiful models and varied games) to being one about CARS! and CASH! and BIG WINS! It feels like any segment without those three elements is lacking. Like they're just the bits between the parts of the show people actually care about. Outside of the Showcases, there doesn't seem to be much interaction between Drew and anyone else, save for some staged IUFB skits and his usual "Alakazam" and "dangerous to Switch". I don't know if it's a function of having less time or not. The prospect of not having to play Squeeze Play and Double Prices seven times a month just to fit six games in is one of the reasons I'm semi-excited about the rumors that the show might go from 6 games to 4.
Did I miss the part where the show became Carey's Cash 'n Cars Comedy Cavalcade? I don't know, maybe I'm reading too much into this. Maybe I should'nt look at these clips while I'm studying for a psychology test. :P Is the show starting to focus on the big prizes at the expense of everything else? If the audience likes it, is it really such a bad thing?
-
I'm not sure how you can really make an "if the audience likes it" argument at this point, though -- so far, the ratings indicate that people don't like a whole lot about the show these days (the ratings, as far as I know, are the lowest they've ever been), and this particular change only took effect permanently this week.
Every complaint I've heard about the show from casual viewers centers around Drew Carey just being too different from Bob Barker -- and with that in mind, I'm not sure how they intend to improve things by changing the show to fit Drew instead of the other way around. Bob would always be able to get things back on track quickly if a contestant didn't get what he wanted; Drew has gone so far as to insult the prizes on the air. You mentioned several important elements of the show besides the prizes that are important, CarShark; it seems to me that if Drew would start reemphasizing those instead of trying to rely entirely on cars, cash, and jokes that are only funny to him, the whole operation would be a lot better off.
-
Based on what I've seen over the past month, I'm giving it until the end of the year, and if things don't change even a little, I'm simply going to stop watching.
-
Meh, I've never cared about the prizes myself.
Aside from the lame Showcase gags, I'm not too bothered by the direction the season's going really.
-
Frankly I like when Drew insults the prizes that don't have a fee-plug brand given. (Obviously, you can't insult the sponsors.) I remember seeing a basketball-shaped deep fryer (I think that's what it was) as one of the small prizes in Cliff Hangers, and Drew was going off on it. After all, who would want one of those?
Of course, I'm also the one person who hates Plinko....
-
[quote name=\'Fedya\' post=\'201774\' date=\'Nov 16 2008, 09:34 PM\'] Frankly I like when Drew insults the prizes that don't have a fee-plug brand given.[/quote]Eh, I like when he jokes about the combinations in the one-bid (a grill coming with a supply of laxatives, for instance) but the making fun of the prizes just rubs me a bit wrongly. I mean, if I'm a sponsor and you see him cracking wise about some of the items, I might not want to have my items plugged because they might get ripped by Drew.
-
I really hope the show will remain to have 6 games.
-
I can recall Bob Barker dissing prizes on the air, specifically the first edition of EOTVGS when it came up during a one-bid of books. After the description, Bob asked Janice if it had a picture of TPIR on the cover. Janice pointed to the pic of Cullen Price. When confronted with the fact that it was not his version, Bob then walked over to the display, ripped the book from the wall and tossed it to the floor.
As far as declining ratings, "The View" may be more appealing and relevant to women these days than "Price." During the weeks preceding the election, what happened on "The View" made the news quite often.
-
[quote name=\'Fedya\' post=\'201774\' date=\'Nov 16 2008, 10:34 PM\']Of course, I'm also the one person who hates Plinko....[/quote]
I assure you, you're not alone.
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'201785\' date=\'Nov 16 2008, 11:47 PM\']As far as declining ratings, "The View" may be more appealing and relevant to women these days than "Price." During the weeks preceding the election, what happened on "The View" made the news quite often.[/quote]
I don't know...that might be one contributing factor, but for what has traditionally been the #1 or #2 show of the daypart to suddenly be facing what I believe are the lowest viewership numbers it's ever had...it's hard to believe that that isn't at least partly the fault of Price itself.
And it also doesn't explain how the Friday night broadcast managed to lose 35% of the audience from its lead-in, which was the #1 show that whole night.
-
[quote name=\'Fedya\' post=\'201774\' date=\'Nov 16 2008, 09:34 PM\']Of course, I'm also the one person who hates Plinko....[/quote]You're not alone. I dislike the game too.
I don't know...that might be one contributing factor, but for what has traditionally been the #1 or #2 show of the daypart to suddenly be facing what I believe are the lowest viewership numbers it's ever had...it's hard to believe that that isn't at least partly the fault of Price itself.
Isn't daytime (and syndie) down across the board?
-
One thing that I noticed on the Friday show was that they pretty much followed the daytime version as far as scheduling the commercial breaks (unlike the Million Dollar Specials when they sometimes went from one game to the next without a commercial).
Did this particular primetime show have less commercial time than it's Million Dollar predecessors?
The only reason why I ask is that it seemed that even though they took some extra time in the show open, the $2000 bonus prizes for those who won their way up and the extra few seconds on the military band, they still played a good selection of pricing games (not all quickie games), and still did not look like it was rushed and/or heavilly edited.
And I also liked maintaining the "one from each branch" format in contestants row.
-
I thought the "primetime" episode was meant to be a stop-gap so CBS wouldn't have to air "The Ex-List." It was a daytime show plunked (plinked?) into primetime.
The TV listing book from my paper as well as the national TV Guide magazine didn't have the programming change, so many may have not known "Price" was even gonna be on.
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'201789\' date=\'Nov 17 2008, 12:25 AM\']I don't know...that might be one contributing factor, but for what has traditionally been the #1 or #2 show of the daypart to suddenly be facing what I believe are the lowest viewership numbers it's ever had...it's hard to believe that that isn't at least partly the fault of Price itself.[/quote]
I just don't think we can use the ratings to prove anything one way or another about this ongoing debate. "At least partly the fault of Price itself"? Sure, maybe. But we don't know whether business-as-usual with a competent but not-Barker host (a Todd Newton, to use one popular example) would be doing any better. Yes, casual viewers tell me the same thing about Drew not being as good as Bob. But I have to believe they'd say the same thing about anybody who took that gig.
The ascendancy of The View is definitely a factor. When Price topped the daytime ratings, it really didn't have much in the way of network competition. Now it faces off against one of the most buzzed-about shows on television.
With the possible exception of The View, network daytime ratings are falling everywhere. While we fret about what's going on with TPIR, other fans are fretting about the future of their precious soap operas in general, and one or two of them very specifically. We may simply be looking at the beginnings of a fundamental change in how daytime television works.
Tweaking the games and making the show more Drewish may very well be like arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. However, I'm just not so sure that the iceberg could have been avoided.
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'201804\' date=\'Nov 17 2008, 06:32 AM\']Isn't daytime (and syndie) down across the board?[/quote]
Yes, but even so, Price's rating relative to the other shows was generally unchanged or sometimes even up. Since Drew came in, though, it's down significantly.
[quote name=\'TimK2003\' post=\'201807\' date=\'Nov 17 2008, 09:28 AM\']One thing that I noticed on the Friday show was that they pretty much followed the daytime version as far as scheduling the commercial breaks (unlike the Million Dollar Specials when they sometimes went from one game to the next without a commercial).[/quote]
Simple reason for that -- as Jimmy correctly pointed out, it was a daytime show.
-
I don't know if CBS or Fremantle realize it, but Drew is the wrong guy for the show. He may be fine in other vehicles, but given the stiff competition from The View, his efforts at making it the Drew Carey Comedy Hour aren't helping one bit. Whether a Todd Newton or Mark L. Walberg would have helped matters is anybody's guess.
Daytime used to be a nice haven of escapist TV. Nowadays, if they're not interviewing Sarah Palin or covering the Obama transition, or hearing small-claims cases, people don't watch.
Early Monday morning I drove by the TV City entrance on Fairfax. In the Barker era the line used to extend south and consisted of over 100 people at that time. This moring (Monday) there were only six people in line (the line now forms to the north).
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'201810\' date=\'Nov 17 2008, 07:04 AM\']
making the show more Drewish[/quote]
Approves (http://\"http://www.filmdope.com/Gallery/ActorsZ/18975-17920.gif\")
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'201821\' date=\'Nov 17 2008, 11:32 AM\']
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'201810\' date=\'Nov 17 2008, 07:04 AM\']
making the show more Drewish[/quote]
Approves (http://\"http://www.filmdope.com/Gallery/ActorsZ/18975-17920.gif\")[/quote]
Funny, she doesn't look Drewish.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'201818\' date=\'Nov 17 2008, 11:17 AM\']
I don't know if CBS or Fremantle realize it, but Drew is the wrong guy for the show. He may be fine in other vehicles, but given the stiff competition from The View, his efforts at making it the Drew Carey Comedy Hour aren't helping one bit. Whether a Todd Newton or Mark L. Walberg would have helped matters is anybody's guess.
Daytime used to be a nice haven of escapist TV. Nowadays, if they're not interviewing Sarah Palin or covering the Obama transition, or hearing small-claims cases, people don't watch.
Early Monday morning I drove by the TV City entrance on Fairfax. In the Barker era the line used to extend south and consisted of over 100 people at that time. This moring (Monday) there were only six people in line (the line now forms to the north).
[/quote]
Price has become the Drew Carey Show: The Next Generation. The big draw of Price was about the contestants and the way you could just walk in and win. I doubt, for the most part, if middle America at this point gives a rats ass if the show was hosted by Carey or someone like Todd Newton. I think the Carey factor only gets them so far and that is it.
I personally give the show another season or two at its current pace. Either that or Carey will get bored with the job, which is very possible.
-
The trouble, as I see it, is that the show became self-conscious. Now it's in on the joke.
Barker, while finding the humor in the people, played the proceedings straight. They suspended your disbelief that people would really be that excited about a Broyhill dining room. The set looked out of date because it was out of date.
Drew, as much as I liked the choice and like him generally, plays it like "hey, look, I'm hosting a game show!" The set is tacky because they've painted it that way. The showcases are funnier, which is good, but in a self-mocking way.
The thing is, now that they've done it, they can't go back. People will get (or are) tired of it and it'll go away.
-
TPIR could face the same problem Match Game did. MG was one of a small number of game shows that were supposed to be funny. It worked great for a while, then the gimmick got stale. I was once in on a "How can we fix Match Game?" meeting and the best explanation I can give is that the audience simply tired of it.
-
[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'201945\' date=\'Nov 18 2008, 10:28 PM\']
The set is tacky because they've painted it that way. The showcases are funnier, which is good, but in a self-mocking way.
The thing is, now that they've done it, they can't go back. People will get (or are) tired of it and it'll go away.
[/quote]
I agree with pretty much everything you said except the set remark- I think this is the best looking set they've had in years, at least since the stripes era. It comes off to me as retro, but classy.
The showcases are hit or miss- some are not bad, while others are groan inducing.
Personally, I think that if things don't improve, ratings wise (Does ANYONE have actual numbers this season?) I think they'll do that AI-style revamp...with some new talent.
-
[quote name=\'urbanpreppie05\' post=\'201962\' date=\'Nov 19 2008, 09:35 AM\']
[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'201945\' date=\'Nov 18 2008, 10:28 PM\']
The set is tacky because they've painted it that way. The showcases are funnier, which is good, but in a self-mocking way.
The thing is, now that they've done it, they can't go back. People will get (or are) tired of it and it'll go away.
[/quote]
I agree with pretty much everything you said except the set remark- I think this is the best looking set they've had in years, at least since the stripes era. It comes off to me as retro, but classy.
The showcases are hit or miss- some are not bad, while others are groan inducing.
Personally, I think that if things don't improve, ratings wise (Does ANYONE have actual numbers this season?) I think they'll do that AI-style revamp...with some new talent.
[/quote]
I don't think Roger would put up with this nonsense.
/This message has not approved by Matt Ottinger's Masters of the Obvious TM.
-
[quote name=\'urbanpreppie05\' post=\'201962\' date=\'Nov 19 2008, 08:35 AM\']
Personally, I think that if things don't improve, ratings wise (Does ANYONE have actual numbers this season?) I think they'll do that AI-style revamp...with some new talent.
[/quote]
Well, if they do that, they might as well get Seacrest. Household name, Fremantle employee, accustomed to replacing legends, youth appeal. He could fit it in his schedule if they do it everyday after his radio show either live or live-on-tape.
-
He could fit it in his schedule if they do it everyday after his radio show either live or live-on-tape.
TPIR cannot physically be done live. It takes longer than one hour to tape a show. And, imagine the cost of using studio 33 five days per week. All that said, if Ryan were available he would be a welcome relief over Drew.
-
This post contains spoilers for the 11/19 Price.
I heard once that Mark L. Walberg was the initial top choice on Fremantle's list but CBS didn't want him. Looking back, he wouldn't have been all that bad a choice... he'd have held his own in my listings with Todd Newton and Marc Summers, both of whom I saw run the format and leave me impressed.
I was an enthusiastic Drew Carey supporter last year. I liked him from Whose Line and then the first Play For A Billion and I thought he did well in Season 36... but judging from what's happened this year, Roger kept the show together much more than I thought he did. I'd hoped things wouldn't be this bad while Fingers still had her job... but it seems to me that Syd is the one with the power now. And we know how Syd Vinneage ends up when he gets power.
The show is a mess right now. Just looking at the lineup for today's show reveals why Roger was called such a master at arranging them... playing 1/2 Off and Let 'Em Roll as the first two games ended up forcing not only Pick-A-Number and Double Prices into the same show but also forced a horrid speedup that consumed the traditional reveal for One Away.
I could go on, but if I do it'll just get me riled about Drew's stupid entrances and showcases..
-
(Text in white for spoiler purposes)
[quote name=\'TroubadourNando\' post=\'202015\' date=\'Nov 19 2008, 06:03 PM\'] [color=\"#ffffff\"]Just looking at the lineup for today's show reveals why Roger was called such a master at arranging them... playing 1/2 Off and Let 'Em Roll as the first two games ended up forcing not only Pick-A-Number and Double Prices into the same show but also forced a horrid speedup that consumed the traditional reveal for One Away.[/color][/quote]
Well, it wasn't only that, but the part where [color=\"#ffffff\"]the soap opera walk-on role was offered.[/color]
-
[quote name=\'TroubadourNando\' post=\'202015\' date=\'Nov 19 2008, 08:03 PM\']The show is a mess right now. Just looking at the lineup for today's show reveals why Roger was called such a master at arranging them... playing 1/2 Off and Let 'Em Roll as the first two games ended up forcing not only Pick-A-Number and Double Prices into the same show but also forced a horrid speedup that consumed the traditional reveal for One Away.[/quote]I think calling Roger Dobkowitz a master of anything except kissing Barker's butt is giving him too much credit. His line-ups were dull, with the same few one prize games and boring car games repeated ad nauseum. If I never see Squeeze Play and Money Game again, it'll be too soon. Even worse, some games were never played in the first half. Others weren't allowed in the second. No one knows why. This made the line-ups not only dull for frequent viewers, but predictable. To me, it felt like he was phoning it in.
-
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'202020\' date=\'Nov 19 2008, 07:31 PM\']
[quote name=\'TroubadourNando\' post=\'202015\' date=\'Nov 19 2008, 08:03 PM\']The show is a mess right now. Just looking at the lineup for today's show reveals why Roger was called such a master at arranging them... playing 1/2 Off and Let 'Em Roll as the first two games ended up forcing not only Pick-A-Number and Double Prices into the same show but also forced a horrid speedup that consumed the traditional reveal for One Away.[/quote]I think calling Roger Dobkowitz a master of anything except kissing Barker's butt is giving him too much credit. His line-ups were dull, with the same few one prize games and boring car games repeated ad nauseum. If I never see Squeeze Play and Money Game again, it'll be too soon. Even worse, some games were never played in the first half. Others weren't allowed in the second. No one knows why. This made the line-ups not only dull for frequent viewers, but predictable. To me, it felt like he was phoning it in.
[/quote]
(As I type this I hope I'm not getting into an argument with one of the "Bob Barker and Roger Dobkowitz are Satan's Offspring" people from GSN....I expect better here)
There was a method to his madness that you'd really have to pay attention to to get.
For example, It's In The Bag. Roger rarely if ever scheduled it first (I do not recall it ever played first, but I'll defer to those with the information) To the ordinary viewer this would just be Roger being dodgy about it. However, the accuracy of that habit was proven when a recent Greco/Vinneage lineup played It's In The Bag first---the playing, like most playings of the game, was lost early in the money chain, and (with no help from Drew's moodiness) took the energy out of most the rest of the show. Roger understood that the first game sets the mood for the show, and that It's In The Bag is too unreliable to lean on for that.
And honestly, you're complaining about seeing Squeeze Play and Money Game too often? Have you actually watched any of the last four to six weeks of shows?
-
[quote name=\'WhammyPower\' post=\'202016\' date=\'Nov 19 2008, 07:07 PM\']
(Text in white for spoiler purposes)
Well, it wasn't only that, but the part where [color=\"#ffffff\"]the soap opera walk-on role was offered.[/color]
[/quote]
THIS is the reason for the speedup, no other. This "bit" lasted at least a couple of minutes, those that would've otherwise gone to the ole Mighty Sound Effects Guy. Sure, it was awkward to watch One Away, but after seeing the end, I think it was worth it. Nothing seemed particularly out of place game lineup wise, like there actually were actually intended to be guidelines for them, except for maybe one car game each half and maybe one cash game a day. That's all YOUR AVERAGE JOE SCHMO might notice. Anyway, variety is the spice of life!
Obviously, I was able to catch an episode today for the first time in awhile. Not sorry to those who think otherwise, but I feel the show is doing fine right now. A small nitpick I do have is that I think an electronic monitor/screen would've been better than the green screen, but that's minor compared to what could be happening. The showcases, as I've seen the couple times I've caught it this season, are hit or miss IMHO, but I also have seen that in episodes from the earlier days. Today's showcases I thought were on target. Experimentation is not a bad thing ladies and gentlemen, it's how new pricing games are introduced *Gas Money is one of the best new games they've introduced in quite awhile too, IMHO*.
I also still am giving Drew a little slack. I estimated it would take 2 to 3 years for a new TPIR to really get their feet wet enough and get their footing strong enough for things to start running as totally smoothly *if there really was any significant difference* then before. IMHO, people should stop crying about Drew, he's had JUST A LITTLE OVER ONE YEAR to do things. Alex's improvement on J! is significant over his first 2 years, same for Sajak, same for Viera. Drew's pay is a null point, if CBS really had a problem with what he wanted, or with the job he was doing, there should be no doubt they'd stir the pot a bit...
BTW, I seem to remember in another forum topic where people were saying that new daytime shows that get at least a "friggin 1 rating" were considered a mild hit. Even if has dropped a bit, last checking TPIR's ratings, I was seeing numbers in the 3's. Heaven forbid that a CBS show actually get only a 3! -_-
Then you would have to ask, if Price is cancelled, what other options does CBS have? Throw another soap there in the already most soap-ridden daytime schedule on TV? Pull an NBC and extended The Early Show (and we're seeing how NBC's doing with that)? Or, give it back to the stations? It still makes a good news lead-in, and Price has a loyal audience *no matter how Geritol-induced they may be* and I don't believe it has any threat of being cancelled in the near future. Drama queens, take off your crowns...
Again, just all IMHO, and yes, I love that set. :D
-
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'202020\' date=\'Nov 19 2008, 07:31 PM\']
I think calling Roger Dobkowitz a master of anything except kissing Barker's butt is giving him too much credit. His line-ups were dull, with the same few one prize games and boring car games repeated ad nauseum. If I never see Squeeze Play and Money Game again, it'll be too soon. Even worse, some games were never played in the first half. Others weren't allowed in the second. No one knows why. This made the line-ups not only dull for frequent viewers, but predictable. To me, it felt like he was phoning it in.
[/quote]
A few lineups from this year:
Freeze Frame
Hole in One
?Switch?
Bonus Game
One Wrong Price
Lucky $even
Bargain Game
Plinko
One Away
Coming or Going
Check Out (Car)
Safe Crackers (Car)
Money Game
Balance Game
Step Up
Ten Chances
Magic #
Double Prices
These were from the last week of shows planned by Roger.
Lucky $even last, Ten Chances fourth, One Wrong Price fifth, back to back non-car games played for cars...yeah, phoning it in. Give me a break.
And obviously, I'm sure you understand, there are only so many short games on the show and they are needed in order to create lineups with the longer, generally "better" games. Squeeze Play and Money Game just fall into those "short" categories.
-
IMHO, people should stop crying about Drew, he's had JUST A LITTLE OVER ONE YEAR to do things. Alex's improvement on J! is significant over his first 2 years, same for Sajak, same for Viera.
Vieira can be disputed (I'm not the only one who hates her) and both Sajak and Trebek took over much simpler formats.
That said, a host putting in a barely acceptable first year performance then imploding on himself in his second year would be considered unacceptable in any other case. How long do you think Bert Parks would have lasted trying to keep his head above water with the complex demands of Hollywood Squares? What about Jon Bauman for that matter? Or Ross Shafer? None of them got "two to three years" to prove what they had. Parks never made it past his pilot, Bauman was off in nine weeks, and Shafer fell in a year.
-
[quote name=\'ClockGameJohn\' post=\'202027\' date=\'Nov 19 2008, 08:30 PM\']Lucky $even last, Ten Chances fourth, One Wrong Price fifth, back to back non-car games played for cars...yeah, phoning it in. Give me a break.[/quote]3 episodes over a relatively large sample size doesn't really say much.
Not that I'm taking any particular side here...but I should note that Lucky Seven was played first (and only first) for a very long time. That said, the new rule on cash/car games first only is about the same, IMO.
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'202032\' date=\'Nov 19 2008, 08:55 PM\']Not that I'm taking any particular side here...but I should note that Lucky Seven was played first (and only first) for a very long time. That said, the new rule on cash/car games first only is about the same, IMO.[/quote]
Please show me where the rule about Lucky $even stated, "No other pricing game can be played first."
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'202036\' date=\'Nov 19 2008, 09:21 PM\']
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'202032\' date=\'Nov 19 2008, 08:55 PM\']Not that I'm taking any particular side here...but I should note that Lucky Seven was played first (and only first) for a very long time. That said, the new rule on cash/car games first only is about the same, IMO.[/quote]
Please show me where the rule about Lucky $even stated, "No other pricing game can be played first."
[/quote]That's not what I said. I'm refering to this, directly from the G-R FAQ:
Starting on March 18, 1999, excluding primetime episodes, Lucky $even was only played as the first game; this was done to accomodate the stage crew, as the game's car takes up a great deal of space backstage.
-
[quote name=\'TroubadourNando\' post=\'202024\' date=\'Nov 19 2008, 09:03 PM\']
(As I type this I hope I'm not getting into an argument with one of the "Bob Barker and Roger Dobkowitz are Satan's Offspring" people from GSN....I expect better here)[/quote]I don't think he nor Barker are eeeeeeeeeevil. I've always respected Barker's performance, but I don't like him as a person. Just because he can turn his charm on and off is no reason to fawn over him. Likewise, I have my own opinion of Roger Dobkowitz and what he has (and often hasn't) done while in charge. And "master"? Puh, followed closely by a -leaze. Just because I won't pray to the Roadies favorite martyr doesn't mean I'm not being reasonable.
Roger understood that the first game sets the mood for the show, and that It's In The Bag is too unreliable to lean on for that.
BS. If that was really the case, then why play Golden Road or Triple Play or 3 Strikes first? Seriously. Those were common occurrences during his run as producer. All of those games are equally (or even more unreliable) than It's In the Bag. 3 Strikes is a luck-based game. You can't get more unreliable than that. All of those games get won maybe a couple of times a season. Why play them? To get a BIG winner. You could have a BIG loser, but that's the risk you take. It's the same idea they're (as I said earlier, IMO) taking too far right now by only playing big prize games first. That's what I mean by too focused.
And honestly, you're complaining about seeing Squeeze Play and Money Game too often? Have you actually watched any of the last four to six weeks of shows?
Did I say I liked it now? I didn't like it then. I don't like it now.
Truthfully, I don't believe that for as long as I've been watching the show (so from summer reruns of Season 31 to now) that the show has ever truly used the roster effectively. I thought the whole point of having 70-odd (and shrinking, for whatever reason) games was to keep the audience guessing and stop them getting bored. Before they retired Joker, Poker Game and Buy or Sell, they only played them a handful of times each year. I'm not counting Drew's first season when I say this, as some games got an earlier start than others, but I don't see why any of the pricing games (outside of GR and TP, for budget reasons) couldn't be played at least 10 times in a 36-week season. Games that I know you guys like. Bonus Game. Check-Out. Credit Card. Danger Price. Take Two. Games that have been played a lot more in the past. The fact that they aren't says to me (repeat, to me) that somebody is or was OK just sticking in a shorter, less interesting game to save a little time because "What's the difference?". Hell, they don't even bother trying to fit in a small prize game anymore.
BTW, Mark is exactly right when he says that cherry-picking a few line-ups to fit your argument doesn't mean much. And how many of those "weird" line-ups happened on a Friday, when you guys play Prediction Game? If that's the source of the weirdness, then that's pretty bad. That would mean he could only be creative when playing Mindreaders with his buddies.
Neither of you really addressed the whole "first half or second half" comment I made.
P.S. Where the hell has Barker's Bargain Bar gone this season?
-
[quote name=\'TroubadourNando\' post=\'202024\' date=\'Nov 19 2008, 09:03 PM\']For example, It's In The Bag. Roger rarely if ever scheduled it first...Roger understood that the first game sets the mood for the show, and that It's In The Bag is too unreliable to lean on for that.[/quote]
Then why was Golden Road always scheduled first even though the top prize was rarely won??
-
[quote name=\'TroubadourNando\' post=\'202030\' date=\'Nov 19 2008, 08:53 PM\']
IMHO, people should stop crying about Drew, he's had JUST A LITTLE OVER ONE YEAR to do things. Alex's improvement on J! is significant over his first 2 years, same for Sajak, same for Viera.
Vieira can be disputed (I'm not the only one who hates her) and both Sajak and Trebek took over much simpler formats.
[/quote]
I didn't like her at first either, she did not do what I thought was the greatest of jobs her first couple of years. AGAIN, it takes time for a host to get their footing (and I do believe too many shows get canned early before such can happen). I believe now, after she's done it awhile, she does rather well and has come along greatly. The viewers also tend to agree, as the ratings for the show are still good. A good enough format will hold viewers by itself, if it's good enough. TPIR is a good format (I'm sure you'd agree), so unless they got somebody of the likes of Patrick Wayne or Jimmy Kimmel, it should be able to ride most waves.
That said, a host putting in a barely acceptable first year performance then imploding on himself in his second year would be considered unacceptable in any other case.
Has this happened to Drew? I don't think so in the least. What initial case then could you be referencing?
How long do you think Bert Parks would have lasted trying to keep his head above water with the complex demands of Hollywood Squares?
Complex? You're telling me you think HS is harder to do than Jeopardy? I'd like to see most other hosts try to read 60 questions rapid fire like Trebek does in a half hour and not stumble over themselves umpteen times. Need I also remind that Trebek was also the producer for the current Jeopardy run those first few years too. If you also think that a lot of today's game show hosts don't have at least some sort of say *especially the old-timers* behind the scenes, especially at the "classic games" you're also misinformed. Being a good game show host has both on-screen and off-screen attributes...
What about Jon Bauman for that matter? Or Ross Shafer? None of them got "two to three years" to prove what they had.
Maybe it was because Bauman's format had issues of its own, people were also still worn out on MG *note Burger was a GREAT host in 98, but that flopped royally too*, and that both of your examples involve MG, which, as many know, has become so engrained with Rayburn that criticism for it NOT being Rayburn will surface *gee, that sounds familiar*. I thought Shafer was a great host though too.
I have other examples to contest too: Ray Combs *even following a host so iconic as Dawson* is fondly remembered, and looking at episodes from the 90's compared to the 80's, his style changed notably for the better, IMHO. Jack Barry was rough that first season or two of TJW, even the first bit of the syndie run too, and we saw what happened there down the road some years.
When the format is tested tried and true, as Price is, a new host will have a little more time to get settled than with a brand new format. No matter who would've been chosen, Barkerless TPIR would still be on today for its 2nd season, ratings be anyone guess, it's future also anyone's guess, but there can be no doubt that it's current state is a lot better than what most imagined it could be, and what it really could've been. If you can't thank Drew, then all that's left is the format. BUT, that would then mean, thus, the whole host debacle wouldn't be as important as so many are making it out to be then, and I don't think many would agree with that...
[quote name=\'CarShark\']Truthfully, I don't believe that for as long as I've been watching the show that the show has ever truly used the roster effectively. I thought the whole point of having 70-odd (and shrinking, for whatever reason) games was to keep the audience guessing and stop them getting bored. Before they retired Joker, Poker Game and Buy or Sell, they only played them a handful of times each year. I'm not counting Drew's first season when I say this, as some games got an earlier start than others, but I don't see why any of the pricing games (outside of GR and TP, for budget reasons) couldn't be played at least 10 times in a 36-week season. Games that I know you guys like. Bonus Game. Check-Out. Credit Card. Danger Price. Take Two. Games that have been played a lot more in the past. The fact that they aren't says to me (repeat, to me) that somebody is or was OK just sticking in a shorter, less interesting game to save a little time because "What's the difference?". Hell, they don't even bother trying to fit in a small prize game anymore.[/quote]
Sounds familiar. It all has said the same thing to me too. 100% agree. Remember that's also supposedly due to viewer demand too... :)
-
BS. If that was really the case, then why play Golden Road or Triple Play or 3 Strikes first?
I can't vouch for Triple Play, but I understand Golden Road had some setup and staging issues that led them to determine it was easier to just play it first all the time.
You probably won't have to worry about 3 Strikes at this pace.
P.S. Where the hell has Barker's Bargain Bar gone this season?
It got married to 3 Strikes and went on a long vacation.
Has this happened to Drew? I don't think so in the least. What initial case then could you be referencing?
Agree to disagree. I think it has.
Complex? You're telling me you think HS is harder to do than Jeopardy?
Actually, yes. The host of Squares has to contend with a literal cavalcade of personalities that will easily overpower everything around them. Peter Marshall showed how to control that...
Maybe it was because Bauman's format had issues of its own
...but Bauman just couldn't cope with handling Rayburn and eight others at once. He could have had Marshall's format gift wrapped for him and still not have been able to do it. Hell, John Davidson DID have Marshall's format (more or less) but turned in a poor showing belying his three years.
and that both of your examples involve MG, which, as many know, has become so engrained with Rayburn that criticism for it NOT being Rayburn will surface *gee, that sounds familiar*. I thought Shafer was a great host though too.
Bauman was being used purely for the Squares part of his show. And year, I did like Shafer. What I was trying to say was that he was a good host with a few issues who wasn't given the time people think Drew deserves.
That said, I think the idea of MG/HS was one of the most ingenious ones in the genre, if it was only executed better.
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'202039\' date=\'Nov 19 2008, 09:36 PM\'][quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'202036\' date=\'Nov 19 2008, 09:21 PM\'][quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'202032\' date=\'Nov 19 2008, 08:55 PM\']Not that I'm taking any particular side here...but I should note that Lucky Seven was played first (and only first) for a very long time. That said, the new rule on cash/car games first only is about the same, IMO.[/quote]Please show me where the rule about Lucky $even stated, "No other pricing game can be played first."[/quote]That's not what I said. I'm refering to this, directly from the G-R FAQ:
Starting on March 18, 1999, excluding primetime episodes, Lucky $even was only played as the first game; this was done to accomodate the stage crew, as the game's car takes up a great deal of space backstage.
[/quote]
Yes, I'm aware of that. I just don't see how it has any similarity to never starting with a quickie.
-
[quote name=\'TroubadourNando\' post=\'202030\' date=\'Nov 19 2008, 08:53 PM\'] Parks never made it past his pilot, Bauman was off in nine weeks, and Shafer fell in a year.
[/quote]
A minor, but important point: ABC put MG '90 in a horrid time slot (lunch hour), and it probably wouldn't have made it if Gene Rayburn himself had come back to host.
OK, all this being said, Drew Carey is no Bob Barker, but looking back at our posts over the last few years, Bob Barker wasn't himself, either, in his last years, at least according to the stuff we put up. Excuse me for being negative, but we really do enjoy eating our own on here. Drew seems a lot more comfortable in this gig, at least to me, now that he's a year into it. He's injecting a lot more of his kind of humor into the show, including a lot of the self-depreciating humor that he's good at doing. It's a good thing that he does do it, too, IMHO, because we've held him to expectations that were really beyond the reach of anyone. That's how I see it, at least, reading over these posts.
The show's changed a great deal over the years, including major changes throughout Barker's tenure. It's survived those. But, the earlier posts are correct -- people's daytime viewing habits have seriously changed, and we may be in for a complete re-do of the daytime schedule, where nothing at all survives the axe. If TPiR ends in the next year or so -- and it will eventually end at some future point, since everything does -- it'll be the end of an era, and I'll be sad to see it end, but we'll be starting a new one. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.
-
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'202043\' date=\'Nov 19 2008, 10:33 PM\']The fact that they aren't says to me (repeat, to me) that somebody is or was OK just sticking in a shorter, less interesting game to save a little time because "What's the difference?". Hell, they don't even bother trying to fit in a small prize game anymore.[/quote]
That is the difference. CBS continues to cut time from the show forcing shorter games to be played. I would love Credit Card, Check Out, et al to be played more often too -- but the fact is that by doing so, you've blown 5.5 minutes out of 27 available minutes to form a lineup.
Lineups started getting more "boring" thanks to less time for the show, something out of the Producer's control.
-
Has this happened to Drew? I don't think so in the least. What initial case then could you be referencing?
Agree to disagree. I think it has.
He's had 2-300 shows to fall into a good rhythm, and it doesn't seem to be working. He is still as unpredictable as when he started. One day, he's flying high, and the next day he's deflated.
What I was trying to say was that he was a good host with a few issues who wasn't given the time people think Drew deserves.
I think Fremantle is seeing where picking from the Live! pool may have been easier. Their better hosts are comfortable, already know the game very well, and of course, have a lot of practice under their belts. Drew didn't have any of these things when he first started out, and that was the problem. I think there would have been a much smoother transition for viewers if they had seen someone who was just as comfortable and knowledgeable as the last host.
Complex? You're telling me you think HS is harder to do than Jeopardy?
Actually, yes. The host of Squares has to contend with a literal cavalcade of personalities that will easily overpower everything around them.
Good hosts for either shows are like comparing apples to oranges. We're dealing with shows that are polar opposites, so there's almost no way of comparing them in any aspect.
-
[quote name=\'rollercoaster87\' post=\'202061\' date=\'Nov 20 2008, 01:14 AM\']I think Fremantle is seeing where picking from the Live! pool may have been easier. Their better hosts are comfortable, already know the game very well, and of course, have a lot of practice under their belts.[/quote]
Having seen a version of Live hosted by J.D. Roberto, I would've disputed you on that until I saw the phrase "better hosts"
/Truth be told, he was adequate
-
[quote name=\'TroubadourNando\' post=\'202046\' date=\'Nov 19 2008, 11:00 PM\']
Has this happened to Drew? I don't think so in the least. What initial case then could you be referencing?
Agree to disagree. I think it has. [/quote]
We shall. I don't think he's perfect, but I DO think he's doing fine, and has injected some new personality into the show.
Complex? You're telling me you think HS is harder to do than Jeopardy?
Actually, yes. The host of Squares has to contend with a literal cavalcade of personalities that will easily overpower everything around them. Peter Marshall showed how to control that...
Again, we'll agree to disagree. I personally think dealing with the content on Jeopardy is signifiantly harder than being the sort of people person an HS host has to be.
Maybe it was because Bauman's format had issues of its own
...but Bauman just couldn't cope with handling Rayburn and eight others at once. He could have had Marshall's format gift wrapped for him and still not have been able to do it. Hell, John Davidson DID have Marshall's format (more or less) but turned in a poor showing belying his three years.
Handling Rayburn? I don't believe Bauman had to "handle" any of them. Those calibur of stars were also not so much to sneeze at for that run either. They mostly didn't have much of a reason to have an ego, if you've seen enough of their episodes. Rayburn was not really known for having that oversized ego like Dawson and Barker are known for now either. Sure, he had one, and he also had legit problems with Bauman many of us have, but there were SO MANY difficulties with MGHSH that I personally think it was doomed from the start.
Time slots, as another mentioned, were also an issue with these shows. I also don't think Davidson was particularly bad with HS *doing the whole people person thing*, but something like Pyramid was beyond him. As rollercoaster also said, comparing a show like HS to one like TPIR is a bit like apples and oranges. They both involve different skills, different audiences to a degree, and require a somewhat different hosting style. TPIR also hasn't really been tinkered with like HS was in MGHSH, or MG was in 90, which could turn off the "change resisters." The 4 games and/or no IUFB rumors that have been going around haven't come true, and only if such happens will I say that TPIR has undergone a major format change.
Using a format that I'm more associated with as an example, WOF has gone through NUMEROUS tinkerings like people say TPIR has over the past couple of years. I'd think WOF actually moreso with tossups, gimmick rounds, bonus wheel, and million dollars, which might be comparable with having new pricing games on TPIR, but WOF's format, as a whole, hasn't really changed since shopping was axed 20 years ago. TPIR's hasn't either, and is not a legitimate reason why people aren't watching the show as regularly as once before.
and that both of your examples involve MG, which, as many know, has become so engrained with Rayburn that criticism for it NOT being Rayburn will surface *gee, that sounds familiar*. I thought Shafer was a great host though too.
Bauman was being used purely for the Squares part of his show. And year, I did like Shafer. What I was trying to say was that he was a good host with a few issues who wasn't given the time people think Drew deserves.
I will then say, again, that TPIR is a much more established format, and has been in the SAME TIME, SAME PLACE, for many years. MGHSH was, even though the formats were classic, a new show in a new time, and lacked the CONSISTENT exposure TPIR has had.
I will then conclude by asking this then. If Drew, for whatever reason one could argue, doesn't deserve an extended time to get his footing at a 35 year long format, what other options are there? A new host? Switching so soon would only cause certain dissention, losing more viewers. Then, really, what's left but cancellation?
-
[quote name=\'rollercoaster87\' post=\'202061\' date=\'Nov 20 2008, 01:14 AM\']I think Fremantle is seeing where picking from the Live! pool may have been easier.[/quote]
Just so everyone's clear, Fremantle and Price did not hire Drew. CBS did.
[quote name=\'wheelloon\' post=\'202073\' date=\'Nov 20 2008, 12:06 PM\']I will then conclude by asking this then. If Drew, for whatever reason one could argue, doesn't deserve an extended time to get his footing at a 35 year long format, what other options are there? A new host? Switching so soon would only cause certain dissention, losing more viewers. Then, really, what's left but cancellation?[/quote]
I don't know if I agree with that...it seems to me that Drew is the reason the show is losing viewers right now. The idea of another host change is risky, but at this point, getting rid of him could actually end up helping -- it would give the network an opportunity to advertise that the show was going back to its roots and away from this "new direction" that people apparently don't like very much.
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'202074\' date=\'Nov 20 2008, 01:46 PM\']
I don't know if I agree with that...it seems to me that Drew is the reason the show is losing viewers right now. The idea of another host change is risky, but at this point, getting rid of him could actually end up helping -- it would give the network an opportunity to advertise that the show was going back to its roots and away from this "new direction" that people apparently don't like very much.
[/quote]
What "roots"?
Also, who would be a bigger draw than Drew and would ensure to preserve the show as if it were the "good old days"?
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'202074\' date=\'Nov 20 2008, 01:46 PM\']Just so everyone's clear, Fremantle and Price did not hire Drew. CBS did.[/quote]Waitwaitwaitwaitwait. Back up the turnip truck. If Fremantle owns the show, don't they get final say as to who hosts or not? Has a network ever forced Mark Goodson to use a host he didn't want?
I don't know if I agree with that...it seems to me that Drew is the reason the show is losing viewers right now. The idea of another host change is risky, but at this point, getting rid of him could actually end up helping -- it would give the network an opportunity to advertise that the show was going back to its roots and away from this "new direction" that people apparently don't like very much.
The problem is, Gavazzi, you (nor anyone else) can prove conclusively that the reason ratings are falling (if they are, which you also can't prove) is because people don't like Drew or his antics. You may not. Your friends may not. We don't know if the audience is. And what if the total ratings are going down, but they're growing in the targeted demographics? What then?
That is the difference. CBS continues to cut time from the show forcing shorter games to be played. I would love Credit Card, Check Out, et al to be played more often too -- but the fact is that by doing so, you've blown 5.5 minutes out of 27 available minutes to form a lineup.
Lineups started getting more "boring" thanks to less time for the show, something out of the Producer's control.
If Credit Card and Check-Out, which are supposedly two of the medium to longer games on the show, fill a third of the line-up with less than a third of the total time, it shouldn't be too hard to fill in the rest with at least two more interesting games. Is that figure including the two Showcase Showdowns?
-
In steve's defense, the ratings HAVE gone down since Drew Took over- however the last posted report was about 18% down, yet this was in the spring.
No official reports about the ratings this season have been posted yet.
/prove me wrong
-
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'202076\' date=\'Nov 20 2008, 02:14 PM\']
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'202074\' date=\'Nov 20 2008, 01:46 PM\']Just so everyone's clear, Fremantle and Price did not hire Drew. CBS did.[/quote]Waitwaitwaitwaitwait. Back up the turnip truck. If Fremantle owns the show, don't they get final say as to who hosts or not? Has a network ever forced Mark Goodson to use a host he didn't want?
[/quote]
I have a hard time believing that Mark Goodson chose Monty Hall to host BTC, seeing that both gentlemen owned competing game show production companies at the time.
-
[quote name=\'urbanpreppie05\' post=\'202077\' date=\'Nov 20 2008, 03:23 PM\']
In steve's defense, the ratings HAVE gone down since Drew Took over- however the last posted report was about 18% down, yet this was in the spring.[/quote]My point is: is the drop in ratings mainly because of the presence of Drew, or the lack of Barker? Unless you can parse that out, any conversation of ratings can't go anywhere. Besides, weren't ratings going down in Barker's last seasons anyways, until people heard that he was retiring and stormed to Studio 33 to see him "one last time"?
I've been trying to mention something earlier, but I keep forgetting. I am guessing that The View has been drawing more female viewers than ever because of their never-ending controversies. I am also guessing that The Price is Right is trying to fight back, which is why we've had quite a few designer items on the show. Coach purses, Jimmy Choo shoes, Gucci everything else. If so, it seems to me that the show could do itself a big favor by introducing a male model on the program. I'm not saying that doing so would mean instant winningness for TPIR, just that it's a option worth exploring.
And I'm still waiting for an answer from Gavazzi or CGJ about playing TP, GR and 3X first AND the "first half, second half" deal.
-
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'202076\' date=\'Nov 20 2008, 02:14 PM\']
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'202074\' date=\'Nov 20 2008, 01:46 PM\']Just so everyone's clear, Fremantle and Price did not hire Drew. CBS did.[/quote]Waitwaitwaitwaitwait. Back up the turnip truck. If Fremantle owns the show, don't they get final say as to who hosts or not? Has a network ever forced Mark Goodson to use a host he didn't want?
[/quote]
"If you don't pick who we like, we'll cancel your show."
...at least that's how I gather it.
-
[quote name=\'wheelloon\' post=\'202073\' date=\'Nov 20 2008, 12:06 PM\']
[quote name=\'TroubadourNando\' post=\'202046\' date=\'Nov 19 2008, 11:00 PM\']
Has this happened to Drew? I don't think so in the least. What initial case then could you be referencing?
Agree to disagree. I think it has. [/quote]
We shall. I don't think he's perfect, but I DO think he's doing fine, and has injected some new personality into the show.[/quote]
When Drew is at his best, he is a joy to watch - when he's at his excitable best, to me, he's the best emcee to come down the pike in the last 10-15 years.
Now, when he's phoning it in, he's almost painful to watch, because it seems like he doesn't care about what's going on, and his mind is on something else. That's what's most dangerous and jarring, that he doesn't have an emotional investment in the game.
-
I wish Drew wouldn't get so emotionally involved in the contestants. Whenever someone loses the solitaire pricing event, Drew mumbles his way through the rest of the segment. The show goes on, dude!
-
[quote name=\'jalman\' post=\'202075\' date=\'Nov 20 2008, 01:45 PM\']
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'202074\' date=\'Nov 20 2008, 01:46 PM\']
I don't know if I agree with that...it seems to me that Drew is the reason the show is losing viewers right now. The idea of another host change is risky, but at this point, getting rid of him could actually end up helping -- it would give the network an opportunity to advertise that the show was going back to its roots and away from this "new direction" that people apparently don't like very much.
[/quote]
What "roots"?
[/quote]
Returning champs and freezing your bids? A guy with a short haircut and glasses hosting?
Something about that last one, OH WAIT... ;)
-
To the best of my knowledge, Price's ratings were holding steady before Barker announced his retirement and may even have been going up. They certainly weren't declining.
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'202081\' date=\'Nov 20 2008, 02:41 PM\']And I'm still waiting for an answer from Gavazzi or CGJ about playing TP, GR and 3X first AND the "first half, second half" deal.[/quote]
Roger simply didn't like to play certain games in certain slots. I believe some of the restrictions may have also had something to do with Bob, as some of them appeared to disappear during Season 36.
As for playing Triple, Strikes, and Road first...certain games, even though they are likely to be lost, have an excitement factor about them that makes up for that and makes them decent "first games." It's in the Bag, with its numerous stopping points, low success rate, and not-that-huge top prize, just doesn't possess it.
And if you think that's a bad explanation...well, I agree. There's just something intangible about this whole process that I don't really know how to put into words.
[quote name=\'jalman\' post=\'202075\' date=\'Nov 20 2008, 01:45 PM\']Also, who would be a bigger draw than Drew and would ensure to preserve the show as if it were the "good old days"?[/quote]
I'm not expecting the host, whoever he would be, to be the draw. The draw would be that the host wouldn't be Drew Carey anymore.
-
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'202076\' date=\'Nov 20 2008, 02:14 PM\']
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'202074\' date=\'Nov 20 2008, 01:46 PM\']Just so everyone's clear, Fremantle and Price did not hire Drew. CBS did.[/quote]Waitwaitwaitwaitwait. Back up the turnip truck. If Fremantle owns the show, don't they get final say as to who hosts or not? Has a network ever forced Mark Goodson to use a host he didn't want?[/quote]
Surely you've heard of movie companies making the decisions on who should star in a movie?
-
[quote name=\'ClockGameJohn\' post=\'202106\' date=\'Nov 20 2008, 04:49 PM\']
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'202076\' date=\'Nov 20 2008, 02:14 PM\']
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'202074\' date=\'Nov 20 2008, 01:46 PM\']Just so everyone's clear, Fremantle and Price did not hire Drew. CBS did.[/quote]Waitwaitwaitwaitwait. Back up the turnip truck. If Fremantle owns the show, don't they get final say as to who hosts or not? Has a network ever forced Mark Goodson to use a host he didn't want?[/quote]
Surely you've heard of movie companies making the decisions on who should star in a movie?
[/quote]
You needn't look far to find an example of the network very strongly "suggesting" a host. Barker was CBS' choice over Goodson's pick, Dennis James. Goodson had control over the syndicated version and used Dennis for that after the network's Bud Grant championed Barker for the CBS version.
There's a book coming in the summer that captures ALL of this good history. More info to come!
Randy
tvrandywest.com
-
Just think, if Goodson had had his way, someone would have had to replace Dennis in 1997.
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'202105\' date=\'Nov 20 2008, 07:37 PM\']
To the best of my knowledge, Price's ratings were holding steady before Barker announced his retirement and may even have been going up. They certainly weren't declining.[/quote]
No one's arguing that the rating haven't gone down. The question is the reason. One line of thought (which appears to be CBS's) is that without Barker, the show was doomed, and the only way to save it was to bring in a comedian with an entirely different sort of appeal. That may be completely off base, or it may not. There's no question that it's alienated a lot of the faithful, but fans of Drew Carey who don't care one way or another about Barker probably also don't belong to online game show discussion groups. We just don't know how well (or how poorly) the show would have done in the ratings with a status-quo replacement and no structural changes.
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'202105\' date=\'Nov 20 2008, 07:37 PM\']And if you think that's a bad explanation...well, I agree. There's just something intangible about this whole process that I don't really know how to put into words.[/quote]
I would suggest calmly to you that this is really a lot of the problem when we devolve into these back-and-forths. This just really screams "because it's the way it's always been done".
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'202118\' date=\'Nov 21 2008, 01:28 AM\'][quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'202105\' date=\'Nov 20 2008, 07:37 PM\']And if you think that's a bad explanation...well, I agree. There's just something intangible about this whole process that I don't really know how to put into words.[/quote]
I would suggest calmly to you that this is really a lot of the problem when we devolve into these back-and-forths. This just really screams "because it's the way it's always been done".
[/quote]Which is exactly how I read it. $16,000 in cold cash sounds like a great way to start a show to me. "Intangible". Honestly.
Back to my original point of the contestants not really being allowed to shine. I think Drew's interviewing skills have gone downhill. It seems that whenever a contestant gets on stage, Drew asks, "Where are you from?" and "What do you do in ____?" After the contestant answers, he then says "What do we have for a ___ from ___?" Rich says the prize and that's it. Like Andrea, who played Let 'em Roll a couple days ago. She said that her son would love the XBox 360 she just won. She said she was a mother of two. Did Drew ask what their names were? No. Did he ask if they watched TPIR with her? No. Did he ask her much of anything? Not really. He just said, "A stay-at-home mother of two could use this..." and just went on like nothing happened. The same with April, who was wearing a pink ribbon shirt for her grandmother. Drew's reaction seemed very insincere. I've heard people complain that Drew doesn't care about contestants. This week is the first time I've ever really seen it myself.
EDIT-I wish there was a way I could download the cue for the bed yesterday. It sounded like a vamp version of one of the 94 car cues. I kept rewinding my DVD just so I could hear it again and again. Awesome.
-
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'202132\' date=\'Nov 21 2008, 10:38 AM\']Which is exactly how I read it. $16,000 in cold cash sounds like a great way to start a show to me. "Intangible". Honestly.[/quote]
Except it isn't going to happen. Some very "tangible" stats show that over the last eight seasons, It's in the Bag has a significantly lower win percentage than any of the "Big 3," despite being played far more frequently -- only 10%, as opposed to 21% for Triple Play, 23% for Golden Road, and 34% for your least favorite of the bunch, 3 Strikes.
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'202177\' date=\'Nov 22 2008, 12:21 AM\']Except it isn't going to happen. Some very "tangible" stats show that over the last eight seasons, It's in the Bag has a significantly lower win percentage than any of the "Big 3," despite being played far more frequently -- only 10%, as opposed to 21% for Triple Play, 23% for Golden Road, and 34% for your least favorite of the bunch, 3 Strikes.
[/quote]It isn't likely to happen, but we all know that the producers can make It's In the Bag harder or easier, depending on which groceries they use. Three obvious outliers could increase the chance we at least see a nerve-racking decision at the $8,000 bag.
-
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'202192\' date=\'Nov 22 2008, 10:15 AM\']It isn't likely to happen, but we all know that the producers can make It's In the Bag harder or easier, depending on which groceries they use. Three obvious outliers could increase the chance we at least see a nerve-racking decision at the $8,000 bag.[/quote]
This is true -- and as such, it doesn't speak too well of the current production team that the first time the game ever appeared first, it had one of the hardest setups in its history.
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'202194\' date=\'Nov 22 2008, 01:09 PM\']This is true -- and as such, it doesn't speak too well of the current production team that the first time the game ever appeared first, it had one of the hardest setups in its history.[/quote]I thought so, too. I think budget concerns have made this a year of "hardest setups in history". Looking at tpirsummaries.8m.com (http://\"http://tpirsummaries.8m.com/Season37/PGStats.html\"), contestants are just 31-66 in car games, which seems low to me.
-
who would be a bigger draw than Drew
Since when is Drew a "big draw"? The ratings certainly don't bear this out.
If Fremantle owns the show, don't they get final say as to who hosts or not? Has a network ever forced Mark Goodson to use a host he didn't want?
In the final analysis CBS is the buyer.
Goodson would never have used an emcee he didn't like. He'd be more inclined to take a show to another network first. Yes, Barker and Monty were CBS' ideas, but you can't say they were bad as emcees.
-
Goodson would never have used an emcee he didn't like. He'd be more inclined to take a show to another network first. Yes, Barker and Monty were CBS' ideas, but you can't say they were bad as emcees.
Out of curiosity, who DID Goodson have in mind to host BtC 79'? Was he pulling for Jack Narz?
-
[quote name=\'Steve_Bier\' post=\'202207\' date=\'Nov 22 2008, 04:04 PM\']
Goodson would never have used an emcee he didn't like. He'd be more inclined to take a show to another network first. Yes, Barker and Monty were CBS' ideas, but you can't say they were bad as emcees.
Out of curiosity, who DID Goodson have in mind to host BtC 79'? Was he pulling for Jack Narz?
[/quote]
I've never had it explained to me how Monty got BTC. I'll bet if Monty hadn't gotten it Jack would have. Jack and Frank Wayne were buddies from way back.
I once asked Frank what he thought of Monty as emcee of BTC. He said, "Monty Hall wouldn't say "sh*t" if he had a mouthful of it".
-
Because we need yet someone else's thoughts about Drew Carey and TPIR, here are mine.
The biggest thing that I can't figure out is how Drew seems to have lost a lot of the hosting skill and comfort he seemed to be coming into back in January and February. He was worrying less about getting all of the rules and procedures right, and as a result seemed to be able to pay more attention to the contestants. But in the few episodes I've caught this season, he's back to stumbling over rules he's been over dozens of times.
And, of course, listening to the host stumble over the rules is AGONY. Barker didn't always say "pick a pair of products that have the same price" because he was a fan of alliteration; he said it because it was a reliable way not to f*ck up the rules. "We have six products here, and each of them is the same price--I mean, each has the same price as another one. There are three pairs of products that have the same price, by which I mean they're paired together, so we have three pairs--" AAAAAAAAGH
I truly don't understand Drew letting his sadness over contestants losing affect his hosting for the rest of the show. While I don't believe that Barker ever actually felt sad about a loss, he certainly knew how to take the downer of a big loss and turn it into a hook for the viewer. "Rod, that was a horrible loss! Horrible! We've got to turn this around! We need a win!"
Oh, and I would enjoy the "new" showcases a lot more if each one of them didn't end with Drew chuckling to himself for 30 seconds about how funny they are.
So, yeah. I don't know what happened to the host I thought was doing a B+ job at the beginning of the year, but it would be nice if he came back.
-
Today I had an opportunity to watch and compare Drew Carey's hosting demeanor between Season 36's July 4th episode and this past Thursday's show.... (I didn't care about last Friday since I was away from the TV. Go fig.)
Warm and playful then...
...cold and egotistical now.
And to describe how I'm watching the show then and now...
Me watching it on TiVo then...
...reading Joe Cipirano's recaps now.
-
I wonder if Drew's dip in quality has to do with all the stuff that happened off-season?
IIRC, there's was an article saying Drew was not happy about Roger's firing and not being informed on all the changes the next season was bringing.
I still like Drew and think he's funny. But my faith in his hosting abilities is lowering every week.
-
Does anyone know if Drew's writing more than the Showcases now? Like the prize introductions and the grocery descriptions, for instance. The one is specific I'm thinking of is the mouthwash plug in Pass the Buck, which went something like, "When brushing your teeth is just TOO hard, use this mouthwash". Ugh.
-
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'202325\' date=\'Nov 24 2008, 10:09 PM\']
Does anyone know if Drew's writing more than the Showcases now? Like the prize introductions and the grocery descriptions, for instance. The one is specific I'm thinking of is the mouthwash plug in Pass the Buck, which went something like, "When brushing your teeth is just TOO hard, use this mouthwash". Ugh.
[/quote]
This has been going for a while, though, that mouthwash plug is the worst one I've heard yet. I don't know if it's Drew but it definitely started happening once Syd and Mike Richards took more control.
-
the mouthwash plug in Pass the Buck, which went something like, "When brushing your teeth is just TOO hard, use this mouthwash"
I'm sure the manufacturer of the mouthwash loved that. I doubt they intend their product to be used as a substitute for proper dental hygiene. Do you recall the brand?
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'202331\' date=\'Nov 25 2008, 01:31 AM\']
the mouthwash plug in Pass the Buck, which went something like, "When brushing your teeth is just TOO hard, use this mouthwash"
I'm sure the manufacturer of the mouthwash loved that. I doubt they intend their product to be used as a substitute for proper dental hygiene. Do you recall the brand?[/quote]Not all items are paid plugs. If a generic descrip is read, usually its just some item they picked up from Safeway.
-
I remember when TPIR was funny(as in so funny that I laughed my head off)but that was when Bob was there but now; I don't understand Drew Carey's humor.
-
[quote name=\'MissesHolly\' post=\'210731\' date=\'Mar 19 2009, 03:26 PM\']
I remember when TPIR was funny(as in so funny that I laughed my head off)but that was when Bob was there but now; I don't understand Drew Carey's humor.
[/quote]
Sometimes I wonder if Drew Carey understands Drew Carey's humor.
-
Even during Bob's final years on the show, I felt the quality of the show was being compromised because of lack of time, and lack of quality sponsors. By comparison, watching the old shows from the 70s on DVD, ALL the small prizes had sponsors, ALL the grocery items had sponsors, and there was much more time alloted for games and genuine fun and interaction. Now it's so darn rushed, it takes away from the enjoyment of the game altogether. Drew is not your cookie cutter game show host type, the way Bob was, or Wink was, or even Jim Perry, but I thought he was an ok successor. I don't watch very often anymore, and I can't really watch online since I have dialup still (long story), but it does seem many of the good or fun games have been eliminated, and the showcases seem to be very similar. They no longer seem "fabulous" like they once were. I still miss hearing the snail mail ticket plugs and the mid-show bumper "Stay tuned for more pricing games, and the fabulous showcases, which are coming up on the 2nd half of The Price is Right!". I suppose not only due to time constraints, but the fact that the showcases aren't so "fabulous" anymore, prevents them from being able to do that.
-
I obviously prefer the way things used to be too, but some things just change with the times. There's nothing you can do about some prizes not having sponsors or (more importantly) there being less time for the show.
Am I disappointed with how Drew's turned out? Yes. When I heard he was going to replace Bob I was an ardent supporter, even moreso once I saw him in action live at a Power of 10 taping. He's not horrible now - but he did go through a streak early this season where he was - but he hasn't fufilled the potential I thought he had.
In hindsight I would have given serious consideration to Michael Burger if it was up to me.
-
Eh, I dunno. Drew sure seems to be more hit and miss, but let's also remember he's only been there about a year and a half. Barker had 35 years to get it right, and even then I think he should have retired about five years sooner. That entire show revolved around Barker by the time he did call it quits -- I know, I'm preaching to the choir here -- and I'm with some of the previous posts that say whoever replaced Barker was going to be in for a rough ride.
As for daytime TV about to change fundamentally, I think TV in general is about to change fundamentally. We can TiVo shows, watch entire episodes for free on the Internet, and that's just for starters. We're also past the days of the husband being the breadwinner and the wife being the homemaker. We're in a day and age of two-earner households. Lest we forget, game shows used to be designed so that people could just listen to them without watching and have some clue as to what was happening. Supposedly, this was so that the busy housewife could do her chores without having to see the TV to know what was going on. Today, he and she are both at work, and the kids are at school, so who's watching?
I'll sum it up ... it's not entirely Drew. He does need to get better, but you could put the perfect host in there -- insert whomever you will in that blank -- and I don't think it would stop the decline.
-
I think Drew is doing a good job. He seems to have a lot more fun doing the show than Bob. I like Drew's non-grumpiness. Some aspects could be better, but overall he's doing well.
There is just something else about the show that seems to be different/missing. Maybe it's the audience acting more insane than they used to, or its the set, or the newer games looking more modern. And some of the prize/product descriptions are so non-descriptive that they are of almost no use.
I do like that Rich Fields is being shown on camera, even doing the old school thing and showing him announcing the next contestant and having his image zoom out into a box and move off the screen. I guess it was a Barker policy and not a Fremantle one that kept the announcers off camera.
-
[quote name=\'wdm1219inpenna\' post=\'210769\' date=\'Mar 19 2009, 07:23 PM\']
I suppose not only due to time constraints, but the fact that the showcases aren't so "fabulous" anymore, prevents them from being able to do that.[/quote]You're joking, right?
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'201974\' date=\'Nov 19 2008, 12:03 PM\']
He could fit it in his schedule if they do it everyday after his radio show either live or live-on-tape.
TPIR cannot physically be done live. It takes longer than one hour to tape a show. And, imagine the cost of using studio 33 five days per week. All that said, if Ryan were available he would be a welcome relief over Drew.
[/quote]
And Seacrest has ZERO talent. Frankly, he needs to be off the air.
-
[quote name=\'Terry K\' post=\'211270\' date=\'Mar 26 2009, 06:12 PM\']
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'201974\' date=\'Nov 19 2008, 12:03 PM\']
He could fit it in his schedule if they do it everyday after his radio show either live or live-on-tape.
TPIR cannot physically be done live. It takes longer than one hour to tape a show. And, imagine the cost of using studio 33 five days per week. All that said, if Ryan were available he would be a welcome relief over Drew.
[/quote]
And Seacrest has ZERO talent. Frankly, he needs to be off the air.
[/quote]
I'd argue he has a little more than zero. He's definitely not cut out to be a game show host the way our heroes were, but in this age of television, he's a great asset in terms of the hosting skills he DOES have.
/I'll do it for you
//but in this age of television, he's a great asset in terms of the hosting skills he DOES have.
-
[quote name=\'Terry K\' post=\'211270\' date=\'Mar 26 2009, 06:12 PM\']And Seacrest has ZERO talent. Frankly, he needs to be off the air.[/quote]
You know, you could have just said "I don't care for him." If you were talking about a guy who got lucky and held onto one gig that worked despite his ineptitude, maybe there would be the smallest possibility of truth to your statement. Maybe. But this is somebody who's been hired again and again and again by a large number of different producers whose job it is to recognize talent and get the best person they can find. To try and claim such a person has ZERO talent (I'm sure the caps make a difference) says a lot more about you than it does about him.
-
You know, I'm getting really tired of people not willing to accept that people don't think that Ryan Seacrest has talent.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'211273\' date=\'Mar 26 2009, 06:47 PM\']
[quote name=\'Terry K\' post=\'211270\' date=\'Mar 26 2009, 06:12 PM\']And Seacrest has ZERO talent. Frankly, he needs to be off the air.[/quote]
You know, you could have just said "I don't care for him." If you were talking about a guy who got lucky and held onto one gig that worked despite his ineptitude, maybe there would be the smallest possibility of truth to your statement. Maybe. But this is somebody who's been hired again and again and again by a large number of different producers whose job it is to recognize talent and get the best person they can find. To try and claim such a person has ZERO talent (I'm sure the caps make a difference) says a lot more about you than it does about him.
[/quote]
Thank you. Can we cut and paste this everytime some kid gives us the "Seacrest Sucks" routine?
-
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'211274\' date=\'Mar 26 2009, 06:51 PM\']
You know, I'm getting really tired of people not willing to accept that people don't think that Ryan Seacrest has talent.[/quote]
What you may or may not be tired of is not in any way important here. Every day, on multiple television and radio venues, there is clear evidence that the young man does, in fact, have talent. This is a simple, unassailable fact. You may not like him. You may hate his clothes, or how he looks, or the sound of his voice, or the way he pretends to be heterosexual. I don't really care. But in his chosen field of standing in front of a camera and/or microphone and talking to people, nobody gets to be THAT successful without some amount of talent, and truth be told, Seacrest exhibits a lot more than most.
-
Maybe Ryan's not the best host on TV, but he certainly doesn't deserve to put in the same category with Louie Anderson and John Davidson. I don't think Dick Clark would turn the reins of his New Years' Eve show over to Ryan if he "sucked" that bad.
-
I'm not debating whether or not he has talent.
I'm debating this whole "Seacrest good critics bad" vibe.
And honestly, while I think he has some marketable talent, I don't believe he has as much as people seem to think he does.
-
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'211282\' date=\'Mar 26 2009, 04:40 PM\']
I'm debating this whole "Seacrest good critics bad" vibe.[/quote]
I would imagine that said vibe comes from pretty much every single critic not being able to cite much more evidence aside from "He sucks."
And honestly, while I think he has some marketable talent, I don't believe he has as much as people seem to think he does.
And it appears you're our first volunteer. Would you care to back up your reasoning for drawing this conclusion?
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'211283\' date=\'Mar 26 2009, 06:52 PM\'] [quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'211282\' date=\'Mar 26 2009, 04:40 PM\']
I'm debating this whole "Seacrest good critics bad" vibe.[/quote]
I would imagine that said vibe comes from pretty much every single critic not being able to cite much more evidence aside from "He sucks."[/quote]
What about all the Seacrest fans who insist he has talent only because Dick Clark says so and he "keeps getting hired"?
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'211283\' date=\'Mar 26 2009, 06:52 PM\']
And it appears you're our first volunteer. Would you care to back up your reasoning for drawing this conclusion?
[/quote]
Okay, wiseass, here you go.
My first criticsm of Mr. Seacrest is that, for a host, he doesn't have the presence like he should have. He doesn't command the stage like he's supposed to. He just blends in, and to tell you the truth it's like he's just there to be there.
Another criticism I have of him is that he's gone so far in his career based on convenience. He's not getting hired because of talent. He's getting hired because he's one of the last- well, actual emcees, for lack of a better term- around. To me it doesn't take much to host "American Idol," if we're basing it solely on his performance. Spare me the "it's harder than it looks." If he doesn't command the stage as well as he should be, then someone else could do the same job- and probably for a lot less money than they're paying him, too.
Another issue I have with him IS the overexposure making him have an appearance of great talent. Just because someone keeps getting hired, it doesn't automatically translate to that person having talent. At least not as much as people want to give him credit for having.
He's in TV, I'm not. I get it. But I watch TV, and I can see him. And if I don't like what I see from someone on TV it's my damn right to say it and I would appreciate it if my opinion wasn't instantly dismissed because someone doesn't agree with it.
I let you have your piece, so why can't I have mine, you know?
-
[quote name=\'TheLastResort\' post=\'211285\' date=\'Mar 26 2009, 08:03 PM\']What about all the Seacrest fans who insist he has talent only because Dick Clark says so and he "keeps getting hired"?[/quote]
Well, that would be actual evidence, wouldn't it? You can dismiss either one any way you like, but they are facts that back up an assertion. "He sucks" is just assertion.
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'211286\' date=\'Mar 26 2009, 08:05 PM\']He's in TV, I'm not. I get it. But I watch TV, and I can see him. And if I don't like what I see from someone on TV it's my damn right to say it and I would appreciate it if my opinion wasn't instantly dismissed because someone doesn't agree with it.[/quote]
I'm sorry, is anyone denying you your damn right to say that Seacrest is a bad host? You are certainly allowed to have your opinion, and others are allowed to have theirs, which include that they don't like yours.
You're also the first one to delve into name-calling. I suggest treading a little more carefully.
-
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'211286\' date=\'Mar 26 2009, 08:05 PM\'] I would appreciate it if my opinion wasn't instantly dismissed because someone doesn't agree with it.[/quote]It's not because it's your opinion, it's the fact that it's an overplayed opinion that usually offers little to no valid backup.
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'211286\' date=\'Mar 26 2009, 08:05 PM\'] I let you have your piece, so why can't I have mine, you know?[/quote]It's a discussion board and you're more than welcome to have yours, which I believe you just did.
-
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'211286\' date=\'Mar 26 2009, 07:05 PM\']
I would appreciate it if my opinion wasn't instantly dismissed because someone doesn't agree with it.[/quote]So would others (http://\"http://gameshow.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=7859&view=findpost&p=85038\").
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'211288\' date=\'Mar 26 2009, 07:15 PM\']
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'211286\' date=\'Mar 26 2009, 08:05 PM\']He's in TV, I'm not. I get it. But I watch TV, and I can see him. And if I don't like what I see from someone on TV it's my damn right to say it and I would appreciate it if my opinion wasn't instantly dismissed because someone doesn't agree with it.[/quote]
I'm sorry, is anyone denying you your damn right to say that Seacrest is a bad host? You are certainly allowed to have your opinion, and others are allowed to have theirs, which include that they don't like yours.
[/quote]
Well, when I see statements like "it says more about you than it does about him" attached to someone's opinion on Ryan Seacrest, it doesn't convince me that people are always willing to listen to said opinions.
The problem that I have is not so much the disagreeing with my opinion. Freedom of thought is good, and free flow of opinions is great. Nothing wrong with that whatsoever.
What I do have a problem with is the continued inclination of certain member(s) of this forum using that disagreement to form opinions on both the person's intelligence and apparent worthiness to post here.
(And no, Matt, I'm not talking about you here.)
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'211288\' date=\'Mar 26 2009, 07:15 PM\'] [quote name=\'TheLastResort\' post=\'211285\' date=\'Mar 26 2009, 08:03 PM\']What about all the Seacrest fans who insist he has talent only because Dick Clark says so and he "keeps getting hired"?[/quote]
Well, that would be actual evidence, wouldn't it?[/quote]
No, actual evidence would be some display of talent - something I can see or hear. So far I have yet to see or hear anything resembling talent from Mr. Seacrest.
-
[quote name=\'TheLastResort\' post=\'211294\' date=\'Mar 26 2009, 08:33 PM\']So far I have yet to see or hear anything resembling talent from Mr. Seacrest.[/quote]So, refute the argument - what are you seeing?
-
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'211293\' date=\'Mar 26 2009, 08:26 PM\']Well, when I see statements like "it says more about you than it does about him" attached to someone's opinion on Ryan Seacrest, it doesn't convince me that people are always willing to listen to said opinions.[/quote]
Once again, that was in response to the comment that Seacrest has ZERO talent (again with the caps), something even you understood was wrong. Words have meanings.
-
I wonder what the producers were thinking when they paired Seacrest up with Dunkelman in the first season. Were they looking for a single person, but settled on a pair, or did they set out for a pair that had the same chemistry as Ant & Dec in the UK version? I'd find the latter unusual, since I think of hosting in America as a solo job.
-
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'211286\' date=\'Mar 26 2009, 05:05 PM\']
Okay, wiseass, here you go.[/quote]
Yeah, this will end well.
My first criticsm of Mr. Seacrest is that, for a host, he doesn't have the presence like he should have. He doesn't command the stage like he's supposed to. He just blends in, and to tell you the truth it's like he's just there to be there.
And you're entitled to that opinion, but not only don't I agree, I wonder what show you're watching. But that is a subjective opinion, and we are both entitled to assess it as we see fit.
Another criticism I have of him is that he's gone so far in his career based on convenience. He's not getting hired because of talent. He's getting hired because he's one of the last- well, actual emcees, for lack of a better term- around.
Words fail. Are you really arguing that he's the best in his field only because he's the only one in it?
To me it doesn't take much to host "American Idol," if we're basing it solely on his performance. Spare me the "it's harder than it looks."
No, you will not be spared that. Particularly because when you say
He's in TV, I'm not. I get it.
...you admit you are speaking from a lack of information.
Just because someone keeps getting hired, it doesn't automatically translate to that person having talent.
"Just because people keep wanting to pay him to do a job, doesn't mean that he does it well." Isn't that the very definition of being good at your job? Whether you personally enjoy it is immaterial. It's your right not to enjoy it, of course, but as Matt said, "I don't care for him" and "he sucks!" are two VERY different positions.
I think Rush Limbaugh is a complete hypocrite and a blowhard. Listening to the content of his show makes my brain hurt. I am also continually awed by his talent as a broadcaster based on the success of his show. See the difference?
I let you have your piece, so why can't I have mine, you know?
I believe that is precisely what I invited you to do.
-
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'211300\' date=\'Mar 26 2009, 06:34 PM\']
I wonder what the producers were thinking when they paired Seacrest up with Dunkelman in the first season. Were they looking for a single person, but settled on a pair, or did they set out for a pair that had the same chemistry as Ant & Dec in the UK version?[/quote]
I'm guessing they thought part of the formula was the "hosting duo" thing before they started pulling numbers like a bingo caller on crystal meth and could afford to experiment a little.
-
[quote name=\'chad1m\' post=\'211295\' date=\'Mar 26 2009, 07:38 PM\'] [quote name=\'TheLastResort\' post=\'211294\' date=\'Mar 26 2009, 08:33 PM\']So far I have yet to see or hear anything resembling talent from Mr. Seacrest.[/quote]So, refute the argument - what are you seeing? [/quote]
He's a puppet. A hack. An imitator. If you want to know more, search my previous posts. We've had this "discussion" over and over and over again.
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'211291\' date=\'Mar 26 2009, 07:22 PM\']So would others (http://\"http://gameshow.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=7859&view=findpost&p=85038\").[/quote]
Still need me to answer that page, Chris P.? ;)
-
[quote name=\'TheLastResort\' post=\'211305\' date=\'Mar 26 2009, 10:05 PM\']If you want to know more, search my previous posts.[/quote]I did search and this is what I got, compiled from four of five posts:
[quote name=\''The Last Resort'\']He doesn't sing, he doesn't dance, he doesn't act, he doesn't direct, he doesn't play an instrument. All he does is open his mouth and regurgitate the same lines year after year: "Look at this incredible crowd! Wow! So many people!" It doesn't take much talent to do that...[A list of "pioneers" and old-school hosts] are also vets who came from the old school of broadcasting, when radio and TV were live - you had to think on your feet and speak eloquently because there was no editing to save you. None of them were super-talented, but they were genuine articles and pioneers in the industry, where Seacrest is basically an imitator at best. I just think it's a lot harder to do something when you're the first to do it. To me, Seacrest is neither original nor groundbreaking, so I just don't get the appeal. Maybe someday he'll prove me wrong, but IMO, he's just not there yet.[/quote]Sure, there will always be someone who is going to be the first to do something. But does that mean that, someone like a teacher won't have a difficult time performing his profession because there have been teachers for thousands and thousands of years?
And if Seacrest is indeed following in the footsteps of those broadcast legends before him by emulating and incorporating some of their styles, doesn't that make him someone who knows what he's doing because he studied the best?
Lastly, I'm not sure where this editing thing comes in. Excluding his old TV show and the Idol audition weeks, I don't think Seacrest often engages in anything that's not live, making his job even more difficult to do and showing how good he actually is when he's successful in doing it.
To me, your argument still pretty much boils down to "I don't like him."
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'211291\' date=\'Mar 26 2009, 07:22 PM\']
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'211286\' date=\'Mar 26 2009, 07:05 PM\']
I would appreciate it if my opinion wasn't instantly dismissed because someone doesn't agree with it.[/quote]So would others (http://\"http://gameshow.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=7859&view=findpost&p=85038\").
[/quote]
Really, Mark? Seriously? You dug up a post from four years ago to try and prove a point? Really?
That particular opinion, in addition to the Bill Cullen one you made, I dismissed because you had no actual backing for it.
-
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'211300\' date=\'Mar 26 2009, 09:34 PM\'] or did they set out for a pair that had the same chemistry as Ant & Dec in the UK version? [/quote]
I think that's exactly it. Copy the successful show as much as possible. Worked for Millionaire. Heck, for Weakest Link they even brought the host over. Once the American show was established and they realized they really didn't need an artificially paired Ant & Dec clone, they jettisoned the one with less talent.
-
Back on topic: I miss the cascading lights during the open. I guess the lights don't make any sense with two different screen formats in use now but the lights are better than the words on Chyron.
-
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'211300\' date=\'Mar 26 2009, 09:34 PM\']
Were they looking for a single person, but settled on a pair, or did they set out for a pair that had the same chemistry as Ant & Dec in the UK version? [/quote]
That's your answer. They tried to imitate EXACTLY what Ant and Dec were successful at. Didn't quite work, I believe, because Dunkleman A: Wasn't very personable with the contesti, and B: was unhappy with the 'co-host' role, and thought one season of AI would parlay into success like, well, what Secreast ended up with.
-
[quote name=\'alfonzos\' post=\'211355\' date=\'Mar 27 2009, 05:38 PM\']Back on topic: I miss the cascading lights during the open. I guess the lights don't make any sense with two different screen formats in use now but the lights are better than the words on Chyron.[/quote]
I don't believe the HD conversion had anything to do with getting rid of the light border.
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'211365\' date=\'Mar 27 2009, 07:38 PM\']
I don't believe the HD conversion had anything to do with getting rid of the light border.
[/quote]
If it's not that, then it makes no sense to get rid of it. What else would it be?
-
[quote name=\'Millionaire81\' post=\'211367\' date=\'Mar 27 2009, 09:21 PM\'][quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'211365\' date=\'Mar 27 2009, 07:38 PM\']I don't believe the HD conversion had anything to do with getting rid of the light border.[/quote]If it's not that, then it makes no sense to get rid of it. What else would it be?[/quote]
God, I hate it when I can't remember what has and hasn't been stated in public yet.
Let me put it this way: What's usually been the explanation this year for things on Price that don't make any sense?
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'211409\' date=\'Mar 28 2009, 08:44 PM\']
[quote name=\'Millionaire81\' post=\'211367\' date=\'Mar 27 2009, 09:21 PM\'][quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'211365\' date=\'Mar 27 2009, 07:38 PM\']I don't believe the HD conversion had anything to do with getting rid of the light border.[/quote]If it's not that, then it makes no sense to get rid of it. What else would it be?[/quote]
God, I hate it when I can't remember what has and hasn't been stated in public yet.
Let me put it this way: What's usually been the explanation this year for things on Price that don't make any sense?
[/quote]
Again, depends on who you ask, but I know *I* realize what you're getting at...