The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: Robair on March 08, 2009, 12:18:06 PM
-
"...we're gonna bring ("Let's Make a Deal") back. I don't wanna say what network yet, because we haven't signed the deal yet."
Monty Hall told Mark Simone on the 3/7 WABC Radio Saturday Night Oldies show that "Let's Make a Deal" would be coming back to television very shortly. As for hosting, dream on, kids...Hall won't host now at his age (he officially will be listed as a consultant), but he is looking for a host, "a young Monty Hall", he specified. And apparently, the "Deal" hinges on finding a good host.
Looks like an opportunity for all those folks who didn't get the TPIR gig to show their stuff again.
-
[quote name=\'Robair\' post=\'209793\' date=\'Mar 8 2009, 11:18 AM\']
"...we're gonna bring ("Let's Make a Deal") back. I don't wanna say what network yet, because we haven't signed the deal yet."
Monty Hall told Mark Simone on the 3/7 WABC Radio Saturday Night Oldies show that "Let's Make a Deal" would be coming back to television very shortly. As for hosting, dream on, kids...Hall won't host now at his age (he officially will be listed as a consultant), but he is looking for a host, "a young Monty Hall", he specified. And apparently, the "Deal" hinges on finding a good host.
Looks like an opportunity for all those folks who didn't get the TPIR gig to show their stuff again.
[/quote]
I believe Monty when he says he's got to get a good host. The last three revivals have been flops primarily because of host issues (I don't think anything could have saved Big Deal).
The problem is, LMaD is a very tough show to host, and finding someone to do it as well as Monty -- who people still remember and watch -- is going to be a real challenge.
-
If LMAD comes back to primetime, I hope they'll bring back the Super Deal for $1,000,000.
-
What made Monty so great as a host was that he was charming and genuinely cared about the contestants. At the same time, he threw in a fair amount of sneaky car dealer personality, which made sense for a show called "Let's Make a Deal". The only host I've seen in recent years pull that off is Howie Mandel, and of course, he's got his own "Deal" show...
-
The toughest part, of course, is that the host will have to memorize a different flow-chart for every show. He'll need to remember, in an instant, what to do based on contestants' decisions.
Or perhaps not. The new host could be outfitted with an IFB device, similar to what most news anchors wear these days. A producer could tell the host, moment-by-moment, what to do next ... or even exactly what to say at any given moment.
-
[quote name=\'bandit_bobby\' post=\'209796\' date=\'Mar 8 2009, 01:20 PM\']
If LMAD comes back to primetime, I hope they'll bring back the Super Deal for $1,000,000.
[/quote]
And a money ladder.
And celebrities!
[quote name=\'calliaume\' post=\'209794\' date=\'Mar 8 2009, 01:15 PM\']
The last three revivals have been flops primarily because of host issues
[/quote]
I really didn't find Bob Hilton to be terrible.
-
"You can take the $25,000 you've already won, or you can take what's behind the lovely curtain [random half-naked blonde bimbo] is behind. It'll either be $50,000 which, if you find that, you can't leave with less than or it will be an oversized rocking chair. What do you want to do? *dramatic heartbeat cue*"
Seriously, though, I hope it turns out well and I hope to see this soon.
-
[quote name=\'chad1m\' post=\'209802\' date=\'Mar 8 2009, 02:24 PM\']
"You can take the $25,000 you've already won, or you can take what's behind the lovely curtain [random half-naked blonde bimbo] is behind. It'll either be $50,000 which, if you find that, you can't leave with less than or it will be an oversized rocking chair. What do you want to do? *dramatic heartbeat cue*"
[/quote]
You forgot the "We'll see what's behind your curtain...right after this!" :-P
The one thing a new LMaD has going for it is that the last time Monty Hall hosted the show was 18 years ago. The two subsequent revivals were highly forgettable (I never saw Billy Bush's version except for a two-minute Youtube clip...he was decent). Therefore the prime demographic might not be able to say the new host is "No Monty Hall", the way folks compare Drew to Bob. I doubt the GSN reruns get enough ratings for teens/young adults to gauge a comparison.
Of course, the generations who watched in the 60s and 70s might have a say so...
-
One of the great things about LMaD was that Monty was the producer. It was as if Donald Trump came down to deal Blackjack himself.
-
I just hope they put the merchandise behind huge billboards for Sue Bee honey and Rath canned hams.
I didn't think Billy Bush's was so bad--even "spot the transvestite" seems like a decent (or indecent) way to get them past pricing the groceries on the tray. But the successful 21st Century update of LMAD already happened and it's "Deal or No Deal." Monty's trying to bring back "$64,000 Question" after WWTBAM came out.
-
[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'209808\' date=\'Mar 8 2009, 02:23 PM\']
But the successful 21st Century update of LMAD already happened and it's Australian "Deal or No Deal."
[/quote]
Just my opinion on this one. American Deal comes across as if someone had watched LMAD and said, "Well, this has potential, but there's way too much fun in it. We'll have to do something about that."
/2 eps up on Diwana this past week, folks
//and 2 eps of Blankety Blanks
-
The key ingredient that made LMaD a sucess was the format. It's all about snap decisions. You either take this(or cash) or go for the unknown behind the box/curtain/videowall(did I just reference LMaD'90 there?). That was the core element. What he did with it made it look like there was something different each time even when he trew in mini-games. It all comes to a dramatic Big Deal of the Day. This new host MUST keep the core element intact. What to do with it is up to them, just don't ruin it & make it look like LMaD '03 all over again. I know there's a generational divide here, but if we can see through that & get a compatant host, then we'll see what happens.
Monty, make sure you give the new host some sound advice on how to run the show. Our faith lies in your hands.
-
[quote name=\'Craig Karlberg\' post=\'209860\' date=\'Mar 9 2009, 04:47 AM\']
Monty, make sure you give the new host some sound advice on how to run the show. Our faith lies in your hands.
[/quote]
He'll never see this. You're on his blocked list.
-
[quote name=\'Don Howard\' post=\'209801\' date=\'Mar 8 2009, 01:20 PM\']
[quote name=\'calliaume\' post=\'209794\' date=\'Mar 8 2009, 01:15 PM\']
The last three revivals have been flops primarily because of host issues
[/quote]
I really didn't find Bob Hilton to be terrible.
[/quote]
I didn't either. But it had only been four years since the last LMaD revival, and that was in an era where audiences seemed to have a hard time accepting anyone but the original host doing the show. (It was also a bad era for game shows.) Big Deal was an odd amalgam of LMaD and Truth or Consequences that Stone-Stanley threw together in about two weeks to fill space on Fox because the show that was supposed to be in that slot wasn't ready; Monty had no involvement and resolved to make sure that didn't happen again. I didn't see the Billy Bush edition.
Here's my controversial theory: while most games are (or can be) evergreens, it's possible three shows -- Let's Make a Deal, Match Game, and The Gong Show -- may be a lot tougher to bring back because they were evocative of a certain era, and any revival just won't feel the same to audiences (or else those who weren't exposed to the originals will wonder what all the fuss was about). LMad belongs less in this category than the other two, but they've taken five cracks at it since the original went off the air, and none has exactly shot to the top of the charts.
-
The thing is, this is what happens when a strong personality succeeds with a weak format. LMaD *is* Monty Hall.
The people who have tried to revive this show are thinking that it revolves around people dressing up as turnips, but that isn't enough.
I do think that it's *possible* to do a proper, modern revival of Match Game (as in, I don't think either Gene Rayburn *or* the panel made the show), but I don't think today's TV producers are capable of doing it.
-
[quote name=\'calliaume\' post=\'209873\' date=\'Mar 9 2009, 10:04 AM\']
...because they were evocative of a certain era, and any revival just won't feel the same to audiences (or else those who weren't exposed to the originals will wonder what all the fuss was about).
[/quote]
I think that parenthetical part is especially apt. All three shows you mentioned developed into their cultural definitions in front of audiences. MG evolved into the comedy farce with all sorts of characters in the questions, big personalities like CNR, etc. Gong Show had its own stable of characters, and Chuck got crazier as the show wore on. Kind of hard to expect shows that did something unique in their time to be able to live up to that in the present.
On top of that, much like the double entendre propped up MG, I think the fact people really, REALLY wanted those prizes back then helped LMaD. People were struggling to give up a washer/dryer. Monty's cash bribes were a lot of money at the time. I don't remember tons from the Billy Bush edition - did the prizes make a jump enough to tempt today's contestants? If I had to hazard a guess from memory, I thought the cash amounts were sort of dinky.
-Jason
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'209875\' date=\'Mar 9 2009, 10:29 AM\']
I do think that it's *possible* to do a proper, modern revival of Match Game (as in, I don't think either Gene Rayburn *or* the panel made the show), but I don't think today's TV producers are capable of doing it.
[/quote]
Me, too. "Game Show Marathon" was really close to getting it. All it needed were civilian contestants and a capable host. But then, no TV producers noticed.
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'209797\' date=\'Mar 8 2009, 12:21 PM\']
What made Monty so great as a host was that he was charming and genuinely cared about the contestants. At the same time, he threw in a fair amount of sneaky car dealer personality, which made sense for a show called "Let's Make a Deal".
[/quote]
Now I realize that Monty helped create the game and knew how to run it, and I realize the sneaky car dealer is part of the game. But am I the only one (besides my mother) who doesn't find Monty all that charming or genuine?
Listen to him complain endlessly about over-excited contestants. Look at the smug bastard during the Big Deal. He was always griping about the signs--listen, Monty, you run the place! If the damn signs are in the way, take 'em away at the door! And I definitely recall a phase like Leonard Nimoy's "I Am Not Spock" years when what Monty really wanted was a talk show.
-
It occurs to me that if Monty gets this new version on the air, it would be the sixth distinct revival of the format since the original version went off the air in 1977. I'm looking at "revival" in the strictest sense of a show going out of production, and after time coming back into production in some new (but usually similar) form. Not just network or host or even dramatic format changes, nor moves to/from syndication or concurrent syndicated versions. In production, out of production, back into production.
By that standard, I'm pretty sure LMAD already holds the record for being revived five times. If I'm counting right, Password, TTTT and IGAS have all been revived four times each. (For several reasons, Pyramid's production history is a little harder to define in these terms, but it's up there too.)
By this standard, BTW, Wheel of Fortune is the longest running show to have never been revived. It has effectively never been entirely out of production since it went on the air in 1975.
-
[quote name=\'calliaume\' post=\'209873\' date=\'Mar 9 2009, 10:04 AM\']Big Deal was an odd amalgam of LMaD and Truth or Consequences that Stone-Stanley threw together in about two weeks to fill space on Fox because the show that was supposed to be in that slot wasn't ready...I didn't see the Billy Bush edition.[/quote]
For what its worth, the Bush LMaD was along the same lines as "Big Deal" -- a mixture of LMaD and ToC. I only saw the last several minutes of one episode, where a contestant put his hand into a box, which may contain an item representing a prize, or a critter. For example, to win a computer, the contestant must pull out a computer mouse, not an actual, furry mouse (and they were live -- not toys). He would afterwards try for a trip to Las Vegas by seeing if he can pull out a pair of furry dice (represnting "snake eyes") and not an actual snake.
I was at night school at the time I saw this episode, and I just happened to get out early. I was unable to sample other episodes after that week, as the show was already cancelled.
-
Truth or Consequences also had a number of revivals. Edwards, Bailey, Dunne, Barker (unless you want to consider those one incarnation), Hilton, Anderson.
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'209882\' date=\'Mar 9 2009, 09:50 AM\']
Truth or Consequences also had a number of revivals. Edwards, Bailey, Dunne, Barker (unless you want to consider those one incarnation), Hilton, Anderson.[/quote]
Hilton's was just an unsold pilot, wasn't it?
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'209880\' date=\'Mar 9 2009, 11:18 AM\']
By that standard, I'm pretty sure LMAD already holds the record for being revived five times. If I'm counting right, Password, TTTT and IGAS have all been revived four times each. (For several reasons, Pyramid's production history is a little harder to define in these terms, but it's up there too.)
[/quote]
Which LMAD am I missing? I count "The All-New" with Monty, Bob Hilton's NBC version, "Big Deal" and Billy Bush's.
There's also the Newlywed Game.
--Mid-seventies syndicated
--The New Newlywed Game
--The Paul Rodriguez version*
--Gary Kroeger's
--Eubanks' return*
--The GSN version
I presume the new one counts as the fourth under Matt's criteria, since there weren't cancellations before the asterisked ones above.
Also, the Match Game has four: Match Game '73, MG/Hollywood Squares, Ross Shaffer's and Michael Burger's.
-
[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'209888\' date=\'Mar 9 2009, 12:13 PM\']
Which LMAD am I missing? I count "The All-New" with Monty, Bob Hilton's NBC version, "Big Deal" and Billy Bush's. [/quote]
Monty hosted two syndicated revivals, the 1980 one produced in Canada and the 84-86 one.
I didn't even think of The Newlywed Game. By my rules, the upcoming GSN version would either be the fourth or the fifth revival, depending on whether you want to count that odd week of shows with Jim Lange in 1984. The Eubanks-to-Rodriguez changes and the more substantial Kroeger-to-Eubanks changes were still essentially the same productions.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'209887\' date=\'Mar 9 2009, 12:09 PM\']
Hilton's [TorC] was just an unsold pilot, wasn't it?
[/quote]
Nope. Had a brief run in '77 [or 78?].
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'209889\' date=\'Mar 9 2009, 01:28 PM\']
[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'209888\' date=\'Mar 9 2009, 12:13 PM\']
Which LMAD am I missing? I count "The All-New" with Monty, Bob Hilton's NBC version, "Big Deal" and Billy Bush's. [/quote]
Monty hosted two syndicated revivals, the 1980 one produced in Canada and the 84-86 one.[/quote]
Wasn't the "All-New" the 84-86 one?
-
[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'209892\' date=\'Mar 9 2009, 12:30 PM\']
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'209889\' date=\'Mar 9 2009, 01:28 PM\']
[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'209888\' date=\'Mar 9 2009, 12:13 PM\']
Which LMAD am I missing? I count "The All-New" with Monty, Bob Hilton's NBC version, "Big Deal" and Billy Bush's. [/quote]
Monty hosted two syndicated revivals, the 1980 one produced in Canada and the 84-86 one.[/quote]
Wasn't the "All-New" the 84-86 one?
[/quote]
Yes, it was sir.
As for this proposed revival, I agree with Curt's theory. LMAD was a show that fit the dynamic of the times. While a good host helps, it's kind of hard to see this show with long lasting power in this day and age.
The Inquisitive One
-
[quote name=\'Chief-O\' post=\'209891\' date=\'Mar 9 2009, 10:29 AM\']
Nope. Had a brief run in '77 [or 78?].[/quote]
Oh! Had no idea. Okay.
-
[quote name=\'JasonA1\' post=\'209877\' date=\'Mar 9 2009, 10:45 AM\']
On top of that, much like the double entendre propped up MG, I think the fact people really, REALLY wanted those prizes back then helped LMaD. People were struggling to give up a washer/dryer. Monty's cash bribes were a lot of money at the time. I don't remember tons from the Billy Bush edition - did the prizes make a jump enough to tempt today's contestants? If I had to hazard a guess from memory, I thought the cash amounts were sort of dinky.
[/quote]
What an excellent point. Back in '72 or thereabouts, a decent all-in-one stereo (AM/FM radio, turntable, either cassette or 8-track player) in the Spiegel Catalog was about $200. In today's dollars, that's over $1000. So, maybe $800 would have to be the low point for a prize given on the trading floor, or cash prizes offered by (insert host's name here). Likewise, a $629 25" console TV in 1975 would buy almost $2500 worth of TV today (that's a pretty nice flat-screen, right?).
I'll throw a couple of new things into the mix.
1) Many of the items that sold for $300 or $400 back then -- like a dishwasher, washer, or dryer -- can still be had for about the same price today. I mean, you can spend a little higher, but the technological advancements have kept prices fairly level. Same with cheap (or Jeep) boom boxes, or (before high-def) televisions.
2) Many of the items are considered quickly replaceable. We don't freak out anymore if a $30 boom box dies -- we buy a new one. In 1972 you'd take the thing down to the fix-it shop and see if it could be repaired. Same with that super-cheap TV.
3) Credit cards were not as pervasive then as they are now. To buy many of these items, you needed to have cash or be able to pay it that month. So some people didn't *have* washers, dryers, dishwashers, or color TVs -- it was either off to the laundromat, watch TV on that tiny B&W for another year or two, or wash the dishes with Madge's Palmolive ("you're soaking in it"). Now, if one breaks, we just whip out the credit card. Of course, now those $400 washers are costing people $1,000 with the monthly interest involved -- but that's another story.
-
Curt's points are terrific. Now, a new LMAD could get away with offering more cash. It's "The Price Is Right" that really has the problem. One can pile bundles of 20s on top of Jay's tray or put a giant piggy bank behind the door, but to bid on merchandise you have to find some people want.
-
[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'209879\' date=\'Mar 9 2009, 11:11 AM\']
Now I realize that Monty helped create the game and knew how to run it, and I realize the sneaky car dealer is part of the game. But am I the only one (besides my mother) who doesn't find Monty all that charming or genuine?
[/quote]
Agreed. What did Monty want? Excited contestants or a poetry reading?
"Instead of making deals, I thought we'd view some etchings..."
-
[quote name=\'bandit_bobby\' post=\'209796\' date=\'Mar 8 2009, 10:20 AM\']If LMAD comes back to primetime, I hope they'll bring back the Super Deal for $1,000,000.[/quote]This is just too funny. If I'm remembering something for real, and not just another internetz rumor or mis-memory, it was no less than Monty Hall himself who said "It's not the amount of money we give away, it's how we do it." If you give someone $500 and say "You can keep that, or trade it for what it's under the box" that's still going to be a tough decision for more than a few people. You can play the game for hundreds or thousands of dollars and still have compelling television, while another game show with Deal in the title manages to not be compelling with hundreds OF thousands of dollars in play.
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'209797\' date=\'Mar 8 2009, 10:21 AM\']What made Monty so great as a host was that he was charming and genuinely cared about the contestants. [/quote]Not to mention he made everyone feel like their choices were real and based on something other than the random vagaries of chance. If the host cannot make people suspend that disbelief that the game is nothing but raw instinct and the possibility of big prizes, then there's really no point.
[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'209808\' date=\'Mar 8 2009, 12:23 PM\']I didn't think Billy Bush's was so bad--even "spot the transvestite" seems like a decent (or indecent) way to get them past pricing the groceries on the tray. But the successful 21st Century update of LMAD already happened and it's "Deal or No Deal." Monty's trying to bring back "$64,000 Question" after WWTBAM came out.[/quote]They actually had a couple. One was the "higher or lower" game that had players reaching into blacked out jars to see if they won the prize or got a nasty surprise, the other one I can remember had five young ladies trying to sort out five grocery items by cost; each one bearing a product. It's the same thing as what was done on a carrying tray years ago, only with different chrome.
-
If & when LMAD does return, one thing I would like to see happen is to increase the risk factor in the Big Deal.
By this I mean that there were a lot of times when people who win a decent amount of cash & prizes (like $2500) and still have the chance to trade for a door at the end of the program as the big car, cash or trip winners would keep what they had.
In my recollections, it seemed that nearly 2/3rds of those trading mid-level prizes would always get a bigger, better prize or be very close in value to what they traded off as all 3 "doors" usually had a value equal to or greater than mid-level prizes. I'd like to see more Big Deal doors have a low-value prize replace one of the two "even trade" doors.
-
[quote name=\'TimK2003\' post=\'209970\' date=\'Mar 9 2009, 10:53 PM\']
I'd like to see more Big Deal doors have a low-value prize replace one of the two "even trade" doors.
[/quote]
I'd like to see one have a ZONK!
-
Did Monty specify what country? Australia is taping a pilot of LMAD for Channel 9 soon (along with a new edition of Millionaire called Millionaire: Russian Roulette which is most likely that Italian multiplayer version) and that may be who he was signing with.
-
[quote name=\'geno57\' post=\'209798\' date=\'Mar 8 2009, 10:32 AM\']
The toughest part, of course, is that the host will have to memorize a different flow-chart for every show. He'll need to remember, in an instant, what to do based on contestants' decisions.[/quote]
Monty pulled it off.
The new host could be outfitted with an IFB device, similar to what most news anchors wear these days. A producer could tell the host, moment-by-moment, what to do next ... or even exactly what to say at any given moment.
Um, no.
-
[quote name=\'TimK2003\' post=\'209970\' date=\'Mar 9 2009, 07:53 PM\']
In my recollections, it seemed that nearly 2/3rds of those trading mid-level prizes would always get a bigger, better prize or be very close in value to what they traded off as all 3 "doors" usually had a value equal to or greater than mid-level prizes. I'd like to see more Big Deal doors have a low-value prize replace one of the two "even trade" doors.[/quote]
Really? You really want the Big Deal to end on a downer for someone?
All you've done is lower the level of participant. If there is a risk of getting screwed, even fewer people will roll the dice, and now those $2,500 prize winners have turned into $1,000 prize winners. Whee.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'209974\' date=\'Mar 9 2009, 09:34 PM\']
[quote name=\'geno57\' post=\'209798\' date=\'Mar 8 2009, 10:32 AM\']
The toughest part, of course, is that the host will have to memorize a different flow-chart for every show. He'll need to remember, in an instant, what to do based on contestants' decisions.[/quote]
Monty pulled it off.
The new host could be outfitted with an IFB device, similar to what most news anchors wear these days. A producer could tell the host, moment-by-moment, what to do next ... or even exactly what to say at any given moment.
Um, no.
[/quote]
I didn't mean that I'd like to see them do it that way. But I could see it happening.
As for "Monty pulled it off" ... Exactly my point. Who else can do it that way?
-
Who else can do it that way?
Who's alive and under 70? You'd have to hold auditions, but I think you can safely cross Dave Price, Drew Carey, John O'Hurley, Richard Karn and George Hamilton off the list of auditionees.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'209975\' date=\'Mar 9 2009, 10:43 PM\']
[quote name=\'TimK2003\' post=\'209970\' date=\'Mar 9 2009, 07:53 PM\']
In my recollections, it seemed that nearly 2/3rds of those trading mid-level prizes would always get a bigger, better prize or be very close in value to what they traded off as all 3 "doors" usually had a value equal to or greater than mid-level prizes. I'd like to see more Big Deal doors have a low-value prize replace one of the two "even trade" doors.[/quote]
Really? You really want the Big Deal to end on a downer for someone?
All you've done is lower the level of participant. If there is a risk of getting screwed, even fewer people will roll the dice, and now those $2,500 prize winners have turned into $1,000 prize winners. Whee.
[/quote]
How carefully were the rules of the Big Deal explained to everyone on the trading floor before the show? We all know there were no Zonks for the Big Deal, but was that made crystal clear?
I know there were some downward trades for the Big Deal (car for living room furniture or something like that). I would think people would have thought it out ("We really need the color TV, but we don't need the luggage or the Creamettes... whaddya think?"). I seem to recall the deal before the Big Deal almost never involved big ticket items, giving people an extra couple of minutes to ponder. Maybe a PA or someone would tip them off during the break as well.
-
[quote name=\'itiparanoid13\' post=\'209973\' date=\'Mar 9 2009, 10:19 PM\']
Did Monty specify what country? Australia is taping a pilot of LMAD for Channel 9 soon (along with a new edition of Millionaire called Millionaire: Russian Roulette which is most likely that Italian multiplayer version) and that may be who he was signing with.
[/quote]
Given Nine's recent show of commitment to new programming, what's the over/under on the lifespan of either of these? Two weeks?
-
I think the quality of the last LMaD series suffered, mainly in part to the network's creative staff...ala Lin Bolen with Jackpot in the 70's. Hopefully there will be less of those issues, should the show return.
-Dan
-
[quote name=\'dazztardly\' post=\'209998\' date=\'Mar 10 2009, 11:23 AM\']
I think the quality of the last LMaD series suffered, mainly in part to the network's creative staff
[/quote]
Bouncing the show after only three telecasts didn't help matters much, either. More than a few shows which became ultra-hits (game shows and otherwise) would have been less than footnotes if not given a chance.......among them: Cheers and M*A*S*H.
-
[quote name=\'calliaume\' post=\'209989\' date=\'Mar 10 2009, 05:16 AM\']
I know there were some downward trades for the Big Deal (car for living room furniture or something like that).[/quote]
Sure, there were trade-downs, but if word gets out that those trade-downs could be trade-REALLY-downs, I have to think that those fringe cases of folks-with-decent-prizes-who-pulled-the-trigger-anyhow are going to go down along with it.
Or maybe I'm overestimating the ability of someone who dressed as a radish in order to get on national television to make an informed and rational decision.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'210000\' date=\'Mar 10 2009, 10:48 AM\']
Or maybe I'm underestimating the ability of someone who dressed as a radish in order to get on national television to make an informed and rational decision.
[/quote]
Overestimating. I remember back in '04, our last President was re-elected, not that entire states were dressed as radishes.
-
[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'210003\' date=\'Mar 10 2009, 10:06 AM\']
Overestimating.[/quote]
Overestimating, yes, thank you. Time change is still screwing with me.
-
[quote name=\'dazztardly\' post=\'209998\' date=\'Mar 10 2009, 11:23 AM\']
I think the quality of the last LMaD series suffered, mainly in part to the network's creative staff...ala Lin Bolen with Jackpot in the 70's. Hopefully there will be less of those issues, should the show return.
[/quote]
Isn't gold neck-bling and permed hair on hosts still "in" in the land of Oz??? :)
-
A zonk in the Big Deal? It would seriously cut down on contestants willing to take the risk.
The last thing you want on a merchandise show is contestants who come across as needy. You don't want someone who "needs" a color TV or refrigerator and shows it. You don't want a contestant who will be disappointed and sulk if they don't win a car, for example, and who will jump up and down with glee after winning their spa or their living room group.
<story time>
Once in a rare while they would hold Card Sharks auditions outside my office door, and the contestant coordinator used to drum the message into them with a big mallet that if you came across as needy, as really needing the prize money, you could kiss your ass goodbye -- they didn't want you. They didn't want and actively screened out any contestant with a trace of pathos or neediness to them. They favored "greed" over "need". "All of it -- HIGHER!"
Bob Barker used to get letters at the office addressed to "Bob Barker, Hollywood, California" (credit the post office for sending them to the G-T offices). The basic message was always "Dear Bob Barker, please send me a refrigerator". They were invariably accompanied by a tale of woe worthy of Queen for a Day -- their mother was elderly and ailing and they couldn't work and squeaked by on disability, etc. You didn't have to read too many of them to see the pattern. Barker never saw the letters, and I'm not sure if they even replied to them. But that's who's out there.
</story time>
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'210053\' date=\'Mar 10 2009, 09:51 PM\']
The last thing you want on a merchandise show is contestants who come across as needy. You don't want someone who "needs" a color TV or refrigerator and shows it. You don't want a contestant who will be disappointed and sulk if they don't win a car, for example, and who will jump up and down with glee after winning their spa or their living room group.
[/quote]
This makes sense. But most of the appliances given away in the 1970s were probably significant upgrades on what they had. A brand-new frost-free side-by-side Kenmore with built-in water and ice cube dispenser looked a lot better than that Norge you had to defrost with a ice pick and a blow dryer. So, people didn't necessarily need a new refrigerator, but the one they just won would be so much better.
I would say now, however, that the appliances aren't significant upgrades -- so there may be more of a "so what?" factor than there was in 1970. And, in order to avoid that, they'll have to be a little more creative -- like an elliptical trainer instead of a washer/dryer. (A year's worth of a cell phone plan would also be a good low-price gift.)
Of course, I haven't watched Price start to finish in so long that I have no idea how they deal with these issues, so I may be talking out of my derriere.
-
[quote name=\'calliaume\' post=\'210089\' date=\'Mar 11 2009, 09:27 AM\']I would say now, however, that the appliances aren't significant upgrades [/quote]Here's a picture (http://\"http://pylp.fastpalaces.com/346scase1b.jpg\")of a refrigerator I've used in Palace before; comes complete with a flat-screen TV and recipe center...retails for about $3500.
Not bad...
-
the appliances aren't significant upgrades -- so there may be more of a "so what?" factor than there was in 1970. And, in order to avoid that, they'll have to be a little more creative -- like an elliptical trainer instead of a washer/dryer.
Well, TPIR has six One Bids and eight acts per day, or 30 and 40 per week respectively, and they have to give away something, so bring in the appliances. Plus, back in the day, you had Amana, Maytag, Whirlpool, Frigidaire, etc. all wanting exposure on game shows. It was cheap advertising for them. Of course that era is over. Temptation gave away some fancy prizes and no one cared.
Cell phone time isn't visual, as is a recliner or a spa.
-
Bouncing the show after only three telecasts didn't help matters much, either. More than a few shows which became ultra-hits (game shows and otherwise) would have been less than footnotes if not given a chance.......among them: Cheers and M*A*S*H.
Exactly. That's one point I was trying to make in my Game Shows of 1975 thread from last week...when a show has come and gone from the daytime schedule in 10 weeks or less (as so many of them were that year), how can it be expected to find an audience?
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'210092\' date=\'Mar 11 2009, 11:56 AM\']
Cell phone time isn't visual, as is a recliner or a spa.
[/quote]
TPIR has been throwing out there phones and plans together (namely the iPhone).
-
[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'210098\' date=\'Mar 11 2009, 09:37 AM\']
TPIR has been throwing out there phones and plans together (namely the iPhone).[/quote]
Are they? Last I saw 'em (one of Drew's first shows, which shows you how often I watch TPiR anymore), the prize was just "two iPhones." Period. Easiest $500 I ever would have made.
-
Yes. And in something of a "gotcha!" they include these extravagant plans that push the total prize package into the few thousands.
-Jason
-
[quote name=\'JasonA1\' post=\'210107\' date=\'Mar 11 2009, 11:02 AM\']
Yes. And in something of a "gotcha!" they include these extravagant plans that push the total prize package into the few thousands.[/quote]
Hell, at a minimum of seventy-five bones a month before taxes (if you want any text messaging at all, and for most people who text with any sort of regularity 200 a month is woefully inadequate), they don't have to be all that extravagant to do that, especially if it's more than one phone.
/this is why I don't have an iPhone
-
You don't want a contestant who will be disappointed and sulk if they don't win a car, for example, and who will jump up and down with glee after winning their spa or their living room group.
Poorly written sentence. You DO want a contestant who will jump up and down over a spa or living room group.
"All of it -- HIGHER!"
-
[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' post=\'210097\' date=\'Mar 11 2009, 11:20 AM\']
Bouncing the show after only three telecasts didn't help matters much, either. More than a few shows which became ultra-hits (game shows and otherwise) would have been less than footnotes if not given a chance.......among them: Cheers and M*A*S*H.
Exactly. That's one point I was trying to make in my Game Shows of 1975 thread from last week...when a show has come and gone from the daytime schedule in 10 weeks or less (as so many of them were that year), how can it be expected to find an audience?
[/quote]
Off topic, but I think it's easier to tell with game shows if something's going to work or if it isn't after seeing the first week or two of shows. If a format's bad, it's easier just to try something new than tinker on the fly. Soaps are different; you can get rid of characters and add new ones quickly.
Of the 15 game shows that debuted in 1975, only one had a keeper format, and there were maybe two others that I would watch regularly beyond that. The other 12 ranged from somewhat bad to dreadful. (Now, for 20 points, which shows am I talking about?)
-
[quote name=\'calliaume\' post=\'210118\' date=\'Mar 11 2009, 03:51 PM\']
Of the 15 game shows that debuted in 1975, only one had a keeper format, and there were maybe two others that I would watch regularly beyond that. The other 12 ranged from somewhat bad to dreadful. (Now, for 20 points, which shows am I talking about?)
[/quote]
I will say the keeper was "Cross-Wits", I'll guess that of the two others, one was "Wheel", and the other maybe something short-lived..."3 for the Money"?
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'210119\' date=\'Mar 11 2009, 03:09 PM\']
[quote name=\'calliaume\' post=\'210118\' date=\'Mar 11 2009, 03:51 PM\']
Of the 15 game shows that debuted in 1975, only one had a keeper format, and there were maybe two others that I would watch regularly beyond that. The other 12 ranged from somewhat bad to dreadful. (Now, for 20 points, which shows am I talking about?)
[/quote]
I will say the keeper was "Cross-Wits", I'll guess that of the two others, one was "Wheel", and the other maybe something short-lived..."3 for the Money"?
[/quote]
Switch Cross-Wits and Wheel (how could it not be a keeper?).
Seriously, anyone who's seen Give 'n' Take or Magnificent Marble Machine once can rest assured: it didn't get any better.
-
How about the games that debuted in 74? My must-sees were "Jackpot," "Celeb. Sweepstakes," "Big Showdown," and "Money Maze." Enjoyed "Tattletales," "Dealer's Choice," "High Rollers" "Now You See It" "Name That Tune" and (because of Bill Cullen) "Winning Streak."
Gosh, I guess I liked all the games that premiered in 74.
-
[quote name=\'calliaume\' post=\'210129\' date=\'Mar 11 2009, 03:50 PM\']Seriously, anyone who's seen Give 'n' Take or Magnificent Marble Machine once can rest assured: it didn't get any better.[/quote]
What was that bad about Give-N-Take? As for MMM, "it didn't get any better" doesn't begin to describe what happened to that show.
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'210130\' date=\'Mar 11 2009, 03:57 PM\']
How about the games that debuted in 74? My must-sees were "Jackpot," "Celeb. Sweepstakes," "Big Showdown," and "Money Maze." Enjoyed "Tattletales," "Dealer's Choice," "High Rollers" "Now You See It" "Name That Tune" and (because of Bill Cullen) "Winning Streak."
Gosh, I guess I liked all the games that premiered in 74.
[/quote]
+1
Not a clinker in the bunch on that list. In fact, the closest to "bad" shows among the 1974 premieres (going by the list in EoTVGS) was the Jeopardy! redo (how could they get rid of Final Jeopardy?) and Masquerade Party (although to be honest, I've only seen clips of this).
-- Don
-
[quote name=\'That Don Guy\' post=\'210146\' date=\'Mar 11 2009, 09:28 PM\']
...the closest to "bad" shows among the 1974 premieres (going by the list in EoTVGS) was the Jeopardy! redo (how could they get rid of Final Jeopardy?)
[/quote]
Did they eliminate Final Jeopardy in '74? I thought the winner after Final J picked from the Jackpot Board.
-
[quote name=\'DoorNumberFour\' post=\'210179\' date=\'Mar 12 2009, 09:46 AM\']Did they eliminate Final Jeopardy in '74? I thought the winner after Final J picked from the Jackpot Board.[/quote]
Yeah, the "bad" Jeopardy redo was the '78 version.
As for Masquerade Party, I've seen one episode of the 74 version and it's not bad if you like that sort of lightweight celebrity froth.
-
[quote name='That Don Guy' date='Mar 11 2009, 09:28 PM' post='210146']
[quote name='calliaume' post='210129' date='Mar 11 2009, 03:50 PM']Seriously, anyone who's seen Give 'n' Take or Magnificent Marble Machine once can rest assured: it didn't get any better.[/quote]
What was that bad about Give-N-Take? As for MMM, "it didn't get any better" doesn't begin to describe what happened to that show.
Based on what I've seen of both shows...
Give n Take didn't seem to have much to it. The game was basically, prize plug, toss up question, the player that answers right controls the plunger to start the arrow, and whomever the arrow lands on decides whether to keep the prize or pass it to another player, hoping to get that player over the $5000 limit. It was basically "wash, rinse, repeat". For me, the prize plugs really slowed down the game. The toss ups were really pointless, because all they did was give a player control of the arrow. The premise is a variation of Say When. The only difference was, with Say When, you always knew your running total, and there was really no "luck" involved, providing you might have some idea of the prices of the prizes. Also, there was a $2100 limit on Say When.
Magnificent Marble Machine, I think, suffered from too many format changes with the pinball round. Those changes might've confused the regular viewer. The qualifying round was nothing revolutionary. Basically, you were told the number of letters in an answer, then Art reads a clue that scrolls across the screen. Some of the clues were clever. In the episode I have, Art keeps having to remind the celebs that they cannot help the contestants. I suppose MMM didn't last because I would imagine after maybe a couple weeks, the novelty of watching people play pinball wears off. I remember when Art James called us at GSC8, we talked about MMM and he quipped "Anyone want to buy a used 50 foot pinball machine?"
-
[quote name=\'whewfan\' post=\'210190\' date=\'Mar 12 2009, 11:59 AM\']
Magnificent Marble Machine, I think, suffered from too many format changes with the pinball round. Those changes might've confused the regular viewer.
[/quote]
That's when he started watching "The Young and the Restless" instead.
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'210130\' date=\'Mar 11 2009, 06:57 PM\']
How about the games that debuted in 74? My must-sees were "Jackpot," "Celeb. Sweepstakes," "Big Showdown," and "Money Maze." Enjoyed "Tattletales," "Dealer's Choice," "High Rollers" "Now You See It" "Name That Tune" and (because of Bill Cullen) "Winning Streak."
Gosh, I guess I liked all the games that premiered in 74.
[/quote]
The problem with Winning Streak was that it had a new format every week. I wasn't there, but I was told by someone who attended tapings a lot in those days, that one day, they changed the format one time too many, and Bill Cullen said "Stop the tape, I don't understand the rules." This was BILL CULLEN, not John Davidson or Mike Darrow. Bob Stewart had a tendency to tinker with his shows once they made it on the air. Winning Streak may have lasted longer if they had just picked a format and stayed with it.
-
How about the games that debuted in 74? My must-sees were "Jackpot," "Celeb. Sweepstakes," "Big Showdown," and "Money Maze." Enjoyed "Tattletales," "Dealer's Choice," "High Rollers" "Now You See It" "Name That Tune" and (because of Bill Cullen) "Winning Streak."
Gosh, I guess I liked all the games that premiered in 74.
So did I. I guess '74 had a better track record than '75, didn't it? I liked all the ones that were mentioned, but for me, a few of my all-time favorites premiered that year: Celebrity Sweepstakes, Dealer's Choice, Tattletales and High Rollers.
I think what's so memorable about the '70s is that new formats were tried. By the time the '80s rolled around, most of the shows were just remakes of earlier ones - Hollywood Squares, Newlywed Game, Password, Card Sharks, etc. You rarely saw the crazy new formats you did in the '70s.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'210181\' date=\'Mar 12 2009, 10:55 AM\']
[quote name=\'DoorNumberFour\' post=\'210179\' date=\'Mar 12 2009, 09:46 AM\']Did they eliminate Final Jeopardy in '74? I thought the winner after Final J picked from the Jackpot Board.[/quote]
Yeah, the "bad" Jeopardy redo was the '78 version. [/quote]
I agree (X gets the square). The joke at the time was that the '78 Jeopardy didn't work because Don Pardo wasn't the announcer. That was the LEAST of the show's problems. The elimination of a contestant after Round One and a totally different end game were too much for most viewers to deal with. Merv learned that hard way not to fix something that wasn't really broken. I also heard Art Fleming wasn't thrilled with California.
-
I think what's so memorable about the '70s is that new formats were tried. By the time the '80s rolled around, most of the shows were just remakes of earlier ones - Hollywood Squares, Newlywed Game, Password, Card Sharks, etc. You rarely saw the crazy new formats you did in the '70s.
How I miss the days when I could literally walk into Ira Skutch's office with an idea and if it was any good it would be developed in-house. If the networks liked it, it would get piloted and hopefully go to series. That's basically how Steve Ryan got Blockbusters on the air. In those days innovation, novelty and original ideas were encouraged and pretty much de rigueur but were damn hard to come by. Damn hard. An idea merely consisting of quiz questions, answers and points was likely to be rejected, either for being "too much like" a past show or for not having an innovative element as Blockbusters did. I always give props to Jay Wolpert for at least trying to innovate. Unfortunately I didn't start having even halfway viable ideas until after I left the company.
I cite Bamboozle as a, um "derivative" of TTTT, Hot Potato as a "derivative" of Family Feud, and Power of 10 as Card Sharks meets Grand Game (I use the term "derivative" as a euphemism").
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'210221\' date=\'Mar 12 2009, 03:05 PM\']
That's basically how Steve Ryan got Blockbusters on the air.[/quote]
So I'm curious: when Ryan pitched Blockbusters, did he refer to the board game Hex (http://\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hex_(board_game)\") at all? 'Cuz really, that's always been my one-sentence rundown of the show to people who ask: "What if Hex were a game show."
-
Oh yes, he had gone to the library and looked up Hex in some game books. In Scandinavian countries they play hex on hexagonally-tiled floors. He made a little wooden tabletop mockup of the game board in his shop at home.