Brad Barks
3/28/02
Pressing My Luck
Well, as you all know by now, Whammy! The All New Press Your Luck is set to bow next month on GSN, and being the curator of the web's first Press Your Luck site, I couldn't be happier. I've been waiting 16 years to see new episodes of this show and it's finally going to happen.
The coolest thing about this revival for me personally is the fact that I've had an opportunity to be part of its rebirth. Thanks to living out here in Los Angeles, I got to participate in several runthroughs for the show, and I watched several of the new (and very cool) changes to the show take form. It also meant that I got to meet Todd Newton and Peter Tomarken personally, and to play Press Your Luck with both of them. In the case of Peter, that was especially cool, since he hosted the show so well for three year solid years.
So a lot of people have been asking me how I think Todd will do as host. Well, having seen him learn the game and grow with it, I know he's going to do a super job. He really loves this game, and he has poured his heart into it. At the taping I was at last week, you could see the enthusiasm he felt for the show in everything he did; even during stop downs he was in great spirit; in fact, he was suggesting things I could put on my website! Good stuff.
As for the show itself, the set, esepcially the new board, looks incredible. The new Whammies are just as good as you see in the promos if not better, and the rule changes really make the game more intriguing. The best change, in my opinion, is the new first round. Questions are eliminated, and instead the players get to spin alternately at the board, freezing when they want to stop. But as the round goes on, more Whammies go up, so there's a risk involved in spinning more.
The three episodes I saw were just as exciting as the original series, and if the studio audience is any indication, the home audience is going to love this version as much as they loved the original.
In other rants...Amazing Race 2 is just as good as the original, and Survivor:Marquesas is far better than its African brother.
1/16/02
Chair vs. Chamber
I think my opinion here echoes that of most of America. The Chamber is awful. The Chair is far from the next Who Wants to be a Millionaire, but it's fun.
The Chamber is an embarrassment to the genre and anybody caught watching it. The "qualifying" round, if you can call it that, is no more than a rehash of the old Auction category on Tic Tac Dough. And the questions in the chamber itself are so ridiculously easy that it's almost painful to watch. No matter how the chamber spins, heats up, freezes, coughs up gas, the chamber itself has absolutely nothing to do with the game. It's a prop. And it's not even that intimidating. Even more infuriating--the ridiculous pro wrestling-esque commentary of the host and the contestants themselves. "I don't know if we can keep you in there," host Rick Schwartz schmaltzed at some point during the proceedings. I'm so sure. And the contestants fake grunts and agony bring back scary memories of Herb Stempel's constantly sweaty forehead. These people are being coerced to fake their emotions to create the impression that the chamber is a force to be reckoned with, but most people I know who watched the show were far from impressed. And probably the worst thing about the show is the fact that it's a blatant attempt to steal the limelight away from The Chair. For shame, Fox.
So let's talk about the original product. The Chair is not the most intriguing, exciting, or enjoyable game show in our history. But it is watchable, and that's because there is a solid game there. The chair itself isn't a prop, but rather the heart sensors attached to it are integral to the game itself. I can't remember any game in history with the unique element of contestants knowing the answer a question, but having to control their own body before being able to answer. A very keen idea. Another plus--McEnroe. He didn't come off looking brilliant, but his personality fits the show to a T, and if the show takes off, he'll have a chance to grow into it. Also noteworthy is the general feel of the show--Fox makes The Chamber come off as a 23rd Century game show nightmare. The Chair, on the other hand, looks sharp, and while there is something Orwellian (or Max Headroom-esque) about McEnroe appearing on a monitor above the contestant, it didn't feel nearly as spooky as The Chamber did. The execution of The Chair is far superior to that of The Chamber. While The Chamber provides us with meaningless statistics about the "horrors" the contestant is going through, The Chair simply shows the contestant's heart rate, and the cash the contestant has earned. It's very easy to pick up what is going on, which is key to drawing in reluctant viewers.
The Chair is far from perfect. While some "surprise events" (did someone say Dollar a Second?) were normal, the dropping of a live alligator seemed a bit out of place. And the corny contestant pre-interviews probably need to go (although in retrospect it was nice poetic justice to see the one contestant who couldn't manage to answer one question brag for 10 minutes about how he was a god of sorts). But I think if America can manage to separate these two shows (a tough act, given Fox's low brow maneuverings), The Chair will emerge victorious in this most unique of game show wars. If not, we can thank Fox for stooping to the role of spoiler and curse them for not rising to the occasion to create an even more creative show than The Chair.
12/5/01
Scapegoat Lifeline
It seems like the hype over the quote-unquote pending cancellation of Who Wants to be a Millionaire? is bigger than the hype that surrounded the show when it stormed onto the scene in 1999. Make no mistake about--I think Lloyd Braun was a bit of moron when he suggested that the show might not come back. It's one of ABC's top rated shows, and even if the shows skews older than Diagnosis Murder, considering the way the rest of ABC's lineup is performing, I would be stunned if it didn't get at least renewed for the next season.
With that out of the way, let's turn to the reaction in the "game show world" to the hubbub. Game show fans seem to have lost sight of the fact that the game has long ceased to be intriguing to the non-game show fanatic, and the alternate reasons they have come up with for the show's predicament really intrigue me:
Those Evil Bigwigs Hate Game Shows
Television is a business. Game Shows are cheap. When a game show like Millionaire can score a 20+ rating at 1/20th the cost of a Friends or CSI episode, any businessman knows that's money in the bank. You certainly can't say that ABC didn't give Millionaire a chance--they aired it 4 times a week last season! So from a financial standpoint, executives have little reason to hate game shows.
As testimony to supposed anti-game show vendetta, we've had Les Moonves' evil quote (that he would have never scheduled a show like Winning Lines in primetime) shoved down our throat a million times. Well let's look at that. Winning Lines was an odd, confusing show that never had a shot at clicking with mainstream audiences, no matter what night they aired it. Sure the Wonderwall was cool but there wasn't much else there for the non-game show junkie.
True game shows, with the exception of Millionaire, have not faired well in primetime in ages. Twenty-one got off to a great start in early 2000 and everyone thinks it was cancelled prematurely, but the fact of the matter is it was only strong on one of its two weekly airings, and if people bored of Millionaire quickly, you'd better believe they would have bored with Twenty-one even faster. The show was inferior in every way to Millionaire, so even if it had been renewed it wouldn't have had much shelf life.
I think part of the fear that game show fans have about losing Millionaire in primetime has less to do with the show itself, but more the belief that once Millionaire is gone, there won't be a chance in the world of seeing a game show on in primetime again. Well, networks seem to make stabs at primetime games every couple of years or so and nothing has ever stuck except Millionaire . So when you've got a format that over the last quarter century has proven to have a horrible track record in primetime, can you blame the networks for being a little wary?
The Celebrity Shows are Killing Millionaire!
Don't blame ABC for trying. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but some of Millionaire's highest rated shows ever were celebrity editions. I'll be the first to agree that we've had our fill of celebrities in the last few weeks, but I have to think people are bored with celebrity Millionaire for the same reasons they are bored with civilian Millionaire. Whatever strengths of the show are lost by allowing celebrities help through the $32,000 level should be more than made up by the extra attention and entertainment celebrities should bring and it's certainly not happening. And even if America found the celebrity shows to be completely unwatchable, it wouldn't explain why the numbers on the civilian episodes are low too.
The Time Slots Were AWFUL!
Let's look at Thursday night first. CSI is a runaway train, as proven by the fact that even with a weaker Survivor lead-in, the show is on fire. But if Millionaire were able to perform as a competitive second to CSI, ABC would be more than happy. But Millionaire isn't even in the hunt in that time slot, losing to Will and Grace and Just Shoot Me. Almost everyone I've talked to who watches Will and Grace says the show has gotten progressively worse this season, and everyone I've talked to about Just Shoot Me...well...doesn't watch Just Shoot Me. These are the same two shows that Millionaire was destroying a little over a year ago, and the fact that these sitcoms are not improving in quality or in ratings, and that Millionaire is now losing to them, should be more of a testament to the weakness of Millionaire itself and not its timeslot.
Monday night is a bit hairier, especially with a live show like Monday Night Football airing coast-to-coast. Although Millionaire is indeed airing at different times on Monday night across the country, this really ought to be a good pairing. If you want to blame anything here, blame bad NFL karma for giving us some of the worst MNF games in history. But despite the 35 point blowouts, MNF is far from a ratings dog, and it is certainly not a bad lead-in or lead-out show for Millionaire to have.
Old People are People Too!
The reason you haven't heard any non-AARP cardholders talking about Millionaire in the last year is because they aren't watching it. So even if Millionaire continues to pull numbers that rank it as the 35th or 40th most popular show of the week, it still won't be as attractive to ABC (or any non-PAX network, for that matter) as a show that comes in 57th place but gets double the 18-49 rating. It's all about advertising folks, and if you think it's unfair to old people, the unfortunate fact is that it is the way of the world, and ABC would be stupid to make a bold step to stand up and try to buck this trend, because they are just going to lose money and look like idiots in the process.
ABC is Using Millionaire as a Scapegoat for Their Overall Ratings Predicament
Folks, Millionaire is the cause of ABC's ratings predicament. You can't blame their reasoning for putting the show on four times a week, because it was making them tons of money and giving them high ratings. But, as my roommate adroitly notes, they never had a plan B. While other networks developed creative and critically acclaimed fictional programming, ABC counted on Millionaire to plug every hole (and there were many) in their lineup, and their fictional programming development suffered in the process. ABC's new crop of fictional shows this season was a joke, and their holdovers, like Spin City and Drew Carey are barely even competitive. So it came as no surprise to most critics that they found themselves chasing FOX of all networks in the sweeps. Fictional programming will always be the king of primetime, no matter how much game show fans may want to see it turn into headquarters for game shows. If you don't plan for an eventual shift in audience attention, you're going to be left holding the bag, as ABC is now.
With those interesting, creative, and inaccurate theories for Millionaire's struggles out of the way, how about this one -- the game is not fun to watch anymore.
Blasphemy! Why, Millionaire is the greatest game show in history right? Wrong. Let's face the facts here. Millionaire is a simple game that at one point indeed captivated the nation. But it's aired more episodes in two years than most primetime series ever have or will air. That in and of itself is a testament to the strength of the game. But how much more can we expect from this little show? Everything that can be done on it has been done--we've had million dollar winners, we've had $0 losers. We've had contestants from all walks of life. We've had every kind of celebrity imaginable on there. But the fact of the matter is, no one is talking about the show like they were two years ago when it premiered. There's nothing left to talk about! The lifelines were novel, the big money prize was certainly alluring, but under all of that, you have a slow-moving game of multiple choice questions, and if anyone thought that could survive in a competitive primetime environment for 10 or 20 years, then they were sorely mistaken. In its current format, Millionaire has done everything it can possibly do. The show has petered out into its core audience, which is far from tiny, but we can't expect 30 million people to magically start watching Millionaire again like they did in 1999. They simply have no reason to.
Do I think Millionaire should go away forever? Absolutely not. The funniest thing about this "crisis" is that the show isn't going away anytime soon. As I said above, I would be shocked if we don't have it for at least another year in primetime, and if even if the show leaves ABC as a scheduled show after that, we have syndication. Millionaire is the first syndicated show in 15 years that has a real chance to compete with Jeopardy! and Wheel of Fortune, and when it premieres next fall in syndication, it will be airing for a total of 2 1/2 hours per week--30 minutes more per week than it airs now. So, if you're a true fan of the show, you'll enjoy watching it at 7:30pm just as much as you enjoyed watching it at 9pm.
10/18/01
October roundup...
Here's a random smattering of thoughts over what's happened in the last month...
The Mole 2 has been put on hiatus, and although hiatus is usually just a prolonged route to cancellation, it looks like ABC is going to give this show another chance. Good for them. The core audience of the Mole has always impressed me as a bunch of smart, hip, young people. This is the exact crowd of people that would never dream of watching TV on a Friday night, even if it is at 8pm. Tuesday night is a stay-at-home in front of the tube kind of night, and that's why the Mole did so well there earlier this year. The big question is, will the core audience that followed the Mole to Friday last month be miffed by having to wait months for the show to return, and then wait another 3 weeks to watch episodes they've already seen? Part of the fun of watching this show is your constantly evolving opinion of who is the Mole, and to have that process interrupted for this long could be jarring even to die hard fans. We'll have to wait and see. I personally would not like to see this show die. I think if network TV doesn't prove a solid stomping ground for the show, the producers should consider it for cable. It's by far the most enjoyable of any reality show ever produced, and perhaps even the one of the most solid games made in that last decade. So let's give it another try.
Amazing Race take second prize for reality TV right now, because they've done a great job of pairing teams together with very dynamic personalities. While it's hard to play along at home, it's very easy to root on your team of choice, and I think there's a lot of people out there who are intrigued by the idea of the game and imagine themselves playing it, which is just what the producers need. Perhaps the one detracting factor for me right now is Team Guido. I congratulate CBS for giving a team of life partners the opportunity to portray a good example of the gay community to the country. Unfortunately, Team Guido is doing a horrible disservice to that community by acting catty and actively engaging in activities that, while not technically cheating, sure seem to be well outside the spirit of the game.
I'm glad Card Sharks did a tribute to America's heroes. As the first game show to feature heroes from the September 11th tragedy, Card Sharks definitely deserves a round of applause. It's slightly odd watching the heroes discuss a very real, moving experience at Ground Zero and then immediately watch them engage in a game which seems quite silly and meaningless in comparison, but the show's heart is in the right place. I do question the motives of Wednesday's contestant who wagered 95% of her charity's winning in the Money Cards on an 8 (and missed). You could see Pat Bullard just cringe as Tami revealed the card, but what can ya do.
Love Cruise was, quite honestly, a piece of trash. But if you watched a couple of episodes you basically had to see the thing out. There's really nothing valuable about this show save for the pseudo-drama it created. I really question the developers of the game for coming up with a rule structure bizarre and convoluted enough to allow anybody kicked off the ship to return at any given moment. What's the point?
Lost was a novel idea but it was just plain dull. The fact that the winning team won by stealing money from poor Russians and that one of the teams quit in the middle of the contest really didn't do much to entice viewers.
My roommate, an avid Finders Keepers fan and former Family Feud contestant, has noticed that Nick GAS seems to be running the same five Wesley Eure episodes over and over again in the mornings. Please tell me that Nickelodeon made more than 5 episodes of this show for its original run.
9/19/01
Damned if you do...
If the people at CBS had listened to critics, Big Brother 2 would have been cancelled, I'm guessing, at least six times by now. The latest "travesty" committed by the network? Allowing the show to continue after the tragic events of the last week. Without a doubt, the terrorist acts against our country were a horrible act and demanded pause from a nation struggling to understand the ramifications of the event. We here at gscentral.net send out our heartfelt condolences to all those affected by this tragedy.
But let's not kid ourselves here. The people who clamored for the cancellation of BB2 this time were the same people who have wanted it off television from the day it premiered, and to employ the tragic events of last week as fodder for a completely different agenda is--at best--wrong, and at worst--despicable. No one has called for the cancellation of any other show besides BB2 in the wake of this tragedy. The show's producers handled the events as well as they could, informing the 3 remaining housemates about the attack, including giving Monica repeated updates about the status of her family. Make no mistake, the contestants hold their ultimate fate in their hands. Had they wanted to leave, they could have. Even Monica, a New York City resident, decided to stay in the house. Some other critics complained that the network should have fed in live news coverage of the event. God bless CBS for not doing so. While major network news has shined during the last week, the obnoxious overplaying of planes smashing into the World Trade Center and that building's subsequent collapse has left many Americans scarred for life. Playing those horrible images to three people with no ability to contact loved ones or fully grasp the events would just cause unbelievable hardship. Monica, Nicole, and Will were lucky in the sense that they were not bombarded with the suddenness of the attack and were able to hear about it in a more calm fashion.
What the real issue here is that we have a group of television critics who, based on a presumed popularity and readership, have gotten on a bit of a power trip. What started off as their opinions on certain shows has turned into a belief that their opinions can and should drive what is on television. I have a simple request. Let the viewers decide what they want to watch. Despite the horrible critical reception of BB2, its ratings continue to grow. Considering the reputation of this show from last summer, as a boring, Survivor rip-off (and failure), the fact that it has competed strongly in its timeslot and won the 18-49 demographic on several occasions is a miracle. So while mean-spirited critics have tried to bash the show into the stone age, the American public has turned in its own verdict, and the network has responded by ordering a third edition of the show, which gives America's wounded TV critics another year to prepare for it.
8/10/01
Sinner and a Saint
As the emotions and alliances of the contestants on Big Brother 2 change, so do my impressions of them. Going into last night's eviction, while I knew that Kent was basically a goner, I did feel sorry for him, since he was a victim of his own honesty and the shifting allegiances of the other players. However, his post-game interview with Julie Chen was enough to make me say good riddance to him once and for all.
Julie (whose interview questions this season have been much more interesting and forthright than last season's) took Kent to task about his feelings on homosexuality, after he heard a heartfelt speech from Bunky in the Diary Room regarding his eviction. Shrugging it off, Kent bluntly told Julie that she still thinks that homosexuality is an abomination, that it's something he doesn't want near his family, and that he basically thinks it is disgusting and perverse.
That's fine. People are entitled to their opinions. And if Kent had steered clear from Bunky during his time and the house and not paid any attention to him, I would have felt a lot better. But Kent and Bunky were damn near best friends in the house, plotting together, enjoying their time together, and they seemed to get along just great. One episode even showed Kent tucking in Bunky in the HoH room before Kent went to bed. So after hearing Bunky emotionally telling Kent to enjoy the time he spends with his family (even mentioning Kent's wife and children by name), and then to hear Kent say that he wouldn't want Bunky within 100 miles of his family, seems pretty cruel to me. If you're going to say that you don't want someone anywhere near your family, don't go on national television and spend quality time with that person for six weeks and expect people to think that you're not a bit of a hypocrite.
Another interesting point that came out of Kent's interview last night was his disgust at the entertainment aspirations of his fellow housemates. With that point I must partially disagree and agree with him. I find it somewhat humorous that the contestants on Big Brother 2 are expecting fame and fortune from their appearance, when the only thing Big Brother 1 contestants got out of their visit was a partial-week appearance on Hollywood Squares, and that was only afforded to game-winner Eddie. Earlier this week the houseguests got a banner over the house displaying the shows ratings, which had them devastated and thinking that they were unliked and unpopular (of course, the banner didn't say they were winning their time slot half the time and seriously boosting CBS' 18-49 ratings).
Anyways, I'm rambling here, but the point is that during these conversations, heard live on the internet feed, Kent seemed to be quite aware of what was going on in the world of television, even commenting on Tina Wesson's post-Survivor fame, and never did he seem to mention that he would shy away from any post-appearance employement if it arrived. Although he certainly isn't as fame-hungry as Will or Mike appear to be, he isn't completely innocent of trying to pull a little fame and fortune out of his experience.
8/6/01
The Plot Thickens...
So things are heating up in the Big Brother house. Alliances are shifting, and it looks like poor Kent has gotten the shaft. We'll have to see this week if he is indeed evicted, but it looks like a good bet so far. Kent sort of sealed his own fate when he steamrolled through his own nominations with accusations that didn't make anyone too happy. However, he is sort of a victim of his own age and his inability to relate to the younger players. Of specific anger of mine is Hardy, who has turned coats faster than Benedict Arnold; in three weeks he went from a desire to evict Chill Town, to pledging he is part of no alliance, to aligning with Nicole and Will?? He indeed nominated Will this week, although it might have been to save his own face, knowing that Will's popularity in the house has increased tenfold since the departure of Shannon and Mike, who was perhaps the most obnoxious contestant in game show history.
No one seems to be mentioning the ratings of Big Brother 2. Actually, let me take that back. The media has said a lot about BB2's supposedly "mediocre" ratings (I've heard that at least three times). Yet the show has made steady gains on Saturday and Tuesday and solidly won its time slot on Saturday. Unlike some shows which have seen dramatic erosions in their ratings (Spy TV and Murder in Small Town X come to mind), BB2 has been very solid throughout. Considering what CBS's ratings would be if they aired exciting reruns of Diagnosis Murder and the like, BB2 is definitely making CBS happy in the Nielsen department. Could Big Brother become a summer institution for the net?
In other rants...I join others in saying that while Murder in Small Town X seems to be a very novel idea that should be very gripping to watch, it is in reality a bit of overkill. The amount of characters to keep straight is impossible, and the mixture of drama and game just...well...doesn't mix. The overacting of the townspeople in a fake murder case, combined with the overacting of the characters in what is definitely a real game seems very out of place. And why are they cheering the fact that someone got "murdered"? In fact, what kind of investigation is it to allow eight people to get murdered just to find out who killed three people? Seems like pretty sloppy investigating to me.
7/13/01
Big Brother...Big Improvement
Well it's been quite a week on Big Brother 2. Justin is gone, and while a few houseguests seem upset at his departure (including, shockingly, Krista), most thing the house is better off for it. I agree. Justin had to go. No matter how much he claims we take his actions out of context, you simply can not tolerate that kind of threat, jokingly or not, in a closed situation like that. Add to that the fact that Justin's temper seemed capable at being set off at a moment's notice, I realize that the integrity of the game stays stronger with him out of there.
Note that I said "game". Big Brother a game show? Well, let's not worry ourselves about semantics, but the reason that this season's Big Brother is leaps and bounds above last year's is that people are playing the game. Thank God! Last year it was great that everyone seemed to get along, enjoyed playing cards, tended to the chickens, but not one had a strategy, it seemed, to play the game. This season is a complete reversal, which has led to some very heated arguments, factions developing, and people strategizing about alliances, vote-off preferences, and the like.
Say what you want about the show, or the format, but this is exactly what the viewers need to stay interested. The Reality TV Rules website is going crazy with people predicting, hoping, and wishing for certain outcomes. I find myself watching entire episodes of the show instead of tivo'ing through it in 45 seconds. As it stands, the horrible "Brat Pack" of Will, Shannon, and Mike stand against the rest of the housemates, and with this week's Head of Household as the wildcard Krista, anything could happen. It doesn't really matter if you like these people, would approve of your son or daughter dating one of them, or would like to have them over for dinner, the fact is we have a game (and if you've been watching, you know it's a game) with dynamic personalities that captures the audience's attention. If you love to hate 'em, that's fine. That's what the producers of this show wanted, and that's what they're going to get.
So don't give up on the show because of one bad seed. He's out of the house and the game goes on. If the first week and a half is any indication, we're in for an exciting road ahead.
4/19/01
Reeg Dines on Crow
Calling The Weakest Link a "copycat" of Who Wants to be a Millionaire? is like calling Supermarket Sweep a ripoff of American Gladiators. Yet Regis Philbin had the gaul to do that on the record.
Perhaps Reeg needs to be reminded that the game show genre was not born with WWTBAM?, that Millionaire itself could be considered a rip-off of $64,000 Question, and, more importantly, that very few people under the age of 55 even watch his show anymore.
I'm a Millionaire fan. I probably always will be. And I know I want to get on the show more than anything right now. But Regis needs to face the facts. Millionaire is no longer the national phenomenon it was when it premiered in 1999. The show has done little to bring in exciting contestants, and even when there are big wins, everyone knows they are coming thanks to network spoilers. There's nothing new here. There's nothing exciting. Many of my friends my age, who watched the show religiously when it premiered, haven't watched it in months, and trust me, it's been on a few times since then. The endless parade of white men who really don't need the money mumbling their way through final answers is a far cry from Weakest Link, which, although not perfect, is certainly a little more refreshing, and by no means a carbon copy of ABC's overplayed yawnfest. Millionaire is a solid game that will be around a while, but insulting the competition is only going to hurt its credibility. The media has bored of the show and has immediately gone to town comparing Link's strong starting ratings in the 18-49 demo to Millionaire. That's one fight Millionaire will be hard pressed to win, as the show has single-handedly raised ABC's average viewer age by a half-decade or so.
I want both shows to succeed. Hell, I want even more game shows in primetime. But as much as I admire game shows hosts, I can't handle them boasting and resting on their laurels.
In other news...I was at the Link taping with the Survivor I contestants and it was an absolute hoot. It's only a half hour, but it's gold. There was a lot of retakes shot for Anne's barbs, some which eluded to Survivor, others which mentioned nothing related to the show at all.
2/14/01
What's Going on With Survivor??
I have about 105 things to say here so I'll try to organize my strife into two main vents of anger: CBS' declaration that Survivor is not a game show, and the controversy surrounding alleged tampering with the game's outcome by producer Mark Burnett.
First off, Survivor is plain and simply a game show. Without a dobut. Final answer. The tribe has spoken. Using a loosely crafted definition of a "game show" as written in the 1962 regulation prohibiting that genre's rigging, a CBS spokesperson (as read in Zap2it.com) found a way to define Survivor as a non-game. But how do you figure that? In the first series, Colleen was quoted on camera as saying she was on a game show. Past and current contestants alike use the term "game" to describe what they are participating in. What we have here is a show with a cash prize, contestants, and competitions to narrow the field until one person goes home with the prize. Now there are plenty of seemingly dramatic and non-game elements thrown in there that CBS believes distinguishes the show from a game show. But those all affect the outcome of a GAME. Kelly's supposed backstabbing helped her get closer and closer to the prize. It was quite dramatic, but it was done with the money in mind. Passing your spins to your opponent with the intention of having him or her Whammy on Press Your Luck is mean spirited and quite dramatic. But it's still a game. What angers me further is Mark Burnett's comments about wanting a special category for his program in the Emmys. He even went as far as to say that he didn't want his show to be lumped into the Daytime Emmys, as if he's better than that. For shame.
And speaking of Burnett. What's up with these allegations about tampering with the outcome of Survivor I? Stacy Stillman's lawsuit again him and CBS has the makings of a 21-esque controversy, but Stillman's argument is already diluted from the start. First off, her reputation as the whiny bitch from the first series doesn't help. Second, her demand for $5 Million in hush money and her pleading for a spot on CBS' upcoming Race Around the World gives her the same "sour grapes" attitude among the media that Herb Stempel had when he was fighting 21. But let's assume for a moment that her accusation has merit. Stillman states that Burnett convinced Dirk and Sean to vote against her, and not Rudy, during the first series. This definitely affected the outcome of the game...that is, if Dirk and Sean didn't "vote their conscience" and feared reprisal by not following Burnett's wishes. Also, Jenna, on Zap2it.com, was quoted as saying that Burnett convinced Rudy to join the infamous Tagi alliance. Whether or not these decisions had a direct outcome on the game, if the accusations are true, they definitely had at least an indirect outcome on the game.
As a viewer, if any of this turns out to be true, I'm going to feel horribly misled. CBS never suggested anywhere--during the promos for the show, during the closing credits (where game shows typically admit to edits or recreations, even if they don't affect the game's outcome), on the Early Show--that the game was in part staged. I love this show, and I watch it every week to see the exciting human dynamics and how they affect what I think is a game very simple in its execution, but also brilliant in its design. However, I do not tune in to see a show where sixteen puppets are manipulated by an evil producer with an authoritarian idea of how the game show be played. If that's indeed what happened--and I'm praying it's not--Temptation Island will suddenly seem like a haven of dignity in comparison.
In other rants...Slipping ratings and less-than-stellar critical reviews probably mean we will not see another edition of The Mole. This is truly a shame. One of the most intriguing games of the last decade will go by the wayside, thanks in part for unnecessary comparison to Survivor and, if you can believe it, Temptation Island. An Entertainment Weekly (and I hate to harp on them, becuase they gave my Pricing Game page an "A" rating) article for some reason clumped the two shows together in a review and dealt The Mole an undeserving D+ rating. This show has a great game within a game, exciting contestants, crazy and fun tests, and it still never got half the attention that Survivor got. ABC, did you drop the ball on this one?
1/31/01
Simply Mole-velous!
Hands down the best and most well-developed game in recent memory is The Mole. Despite its somewhat lukewarm mainstream reception (hardly a flop, but hardly a Survivor), The Mole is an engaging game-within-a-game that has me hooked for every minute on Tuesday nights. The challenges are exciting in and of themselves, but trying to figure out the Mole in the meantime is the real winner to this show. Anderson Cooper is great as the serious yet somewhat kwirky (his eye roll to the camera on last night's show was classic) host that keeps the glue together on this show. The contestants are normal folks with above average intelligence and none of them seem to have the "15 minutes" syndrome that belies the contestants on Survivor II. My hands down pick for the Mole right now is Steven, but honestly, I'm hoping that I'm wrong, because that seems too easy. I want it to be someone else. I want to get the feeling I got when Rich won...disappointment in the winner, but utter joy at the surprise of it all.
A writer for Foxnews.com slammed the show while praising, believe it or not, Temptation Island. "Why are these people in France?" he wondered, adding that the game required too much mental work. I disagree wholeheartedly. Any person with have a brain and a love for solving mysteries should find the Mole unbeatable in the excitement department. Here's hoping that the rest of the country wakes up to this diamond in the rough.
In other rants...I'm glad to see Survivor II and I found the first episode enjoyable, although I'm a bit perturbed that some of these 16 people are obviously only here to be on TV. Whereas the 16 castaways in the first installment seemed to be playing for the thrill of it all, some of their Australian counterparts seem to believe that they've stepped onto "their break". In any event, the scenery is still pretty groovy and the Tribal Council area is fantastic. The show has potential as always, but we'll need something really creative to maintain the same interest as Survivor I, because, (1), this isn't Summer rerun season, and (2) many people may think the novelty has just worn off and are just sick of hearing about the show. The first two weeks' ratings against Friends and Will and Grace will be very telling in discovering if the show has a chance to match the success of its predecessor.
1/5/01
Best and Worst of 2000
Well, we had a lot of great moments in the Game Show World in 2000. Here are my opinions of the best and worst of those.
Best Win: Joe Trela, WWTBAM. He was not the biggest winner of the year, but his climb from $32,000 to $1 Million without lifelines was the gutsiest I've ever seen. I remember stopping to watch the show when he was at $32,000, thinking he was finished, going to the gym, and then watching riveted as he calmly answered the five hardest questions in the stack without help. While Dave Legler's 21 cash bonanza was the biggest win, it didn't elicit the same excitement in me. Like many people, I found the wins on 21 to be less thrilling because of the speed of the games and the somewhat ditzy challengers.
Best New Show: Street Smarts. Sure, it's loaded with sexual innuendo, but it certainly knocked Sex Wars out of the park in terms of low-budget syndication offerings. A guilty pleasure of mine and many game show fans alike.
Funniest Moment: There were plenty, but Peter Tomarken's line, "Join us for more Paranoia here on Game Show Network...er...Fox Family Channel" was one for the record books.
Best Episode: Finale of Survivor, without question. 50 million people can't be wrong. This finish was amazing and the two hour episode was hypnotic.
Worst Haircut: J.D. Roth, Sex Wars. His hairdresser should be shot.
Best Retro Moment: Game Show Network's unearthing of eight $10,000 Pyramid episodes in September and all of the CBS Joker's Wild episodes in late November. If they could cut into the four hours of Newlywed Game and bring back Price is Right, I think we'd hear a lot less complaining.
Worst New Show: DJ Games. A load of crap, pure and simple. Catchy theme song, though.
Most Needless Cancellation: 21. I was personally more upset when Greed was canned, but let's be realistic. 21 finished in the top 20 on its last episode, won its time slot more than half the time, and still got pitched. Way to go NBC, and thanks for such great hits this fall like Tucker, Daddio, and Deadline.
Best Newcomer: Donny Osmond, $100,000 Pyramid. He's hardly new to the entertainment scene, but after seeing him first hand at the pilot, I know he will quickly adjust to the life of a game show host. This revival has a good chance of succeeding, and if it does, he will be a huge part of it. He was witty, spontaneous, and fun.
11/6/00
Bring it Back, Jack
No, I'm not talking about You Don't Know Jack, which will probably hit our TV screens next year, hopefully with my good friend Tony Harrison as contestant. I'm talking about two shows that, given the current environment, could really take off if brought back for another try. One of them is a given, and one is sort of a dark horse that I still think could have a shot.
Press Your Luck: Sigh, what more can I say...this show has been aching for a revival for at least five years now. People who swear they hate game shows find a special place in their heart for this game, thanks to its kooky contestants, exciting game play, and most important the Whammy. This show was so unique in so many ways and really could draw young viewers. With an updated set, spiffy technology, and a big money jackpot, this one could be a runaway hit.
Celebrity Sweepstakes: Yeah, it's definitely a long shot. But the moderate success of Street Smarts (it's nearly beating Family Feud with much worse time slots) shows me that people might enjoy watching this kooky '70s show comeback, with celebrities on the spot to answer questions. It employs a strategy unique to any game show, and it could be neat to see how much certain stars really know. Celebrity Who Wants to be a Millionaire was a runaway smash, with people talking about how much some celebrities really (didn't?) know. Sweepstakes could provide that same kind of water cooler discussion fodder.
10/22/00
Pearson, Say it A'int So!
Janice, Kathleen, and Paul Alter fired?? Get out of here! In another brainless Pearson move (hey, let's bring back Beat the Clock, only without a clock!), three Price is Right mainstays are being asked to leave the show by the end of the year. Janice who is just as synonymous with the show as Bob Barker has been with the show since day one. Kathleen gets into her job more than any model (all the pictures of her on my pricing game page show how much she loves working on TPiR), and Paul Alter has been a great director for over 10 years on the show (not to mention decades of experience prior).
Cost cutting is normally a death spell for a game show. Why tinker with a show that finished second in daytime (only behind it's lead in, Young and the Restless, which arguably wouldn't be as strong without it)?? New faces and an attempt to go "young" didn't work for The New Price is Right--why would it work here?
Price may skew old, but the producers don't realize that 1)Nielsen boxes aren't placed in college dorms, and college kids are in love with this show and 2)The show airs in daytime, and there aren't many young-skewing shows airing that early in the day. So why rock the boat? Price isn't that expensive to produce!
This is a move that angers both die hard game show fans as well as less fervent fans. I love the show and I wish it the best, but I can't help but think that this is going to hurt the show in the ratings.
10/11/00
Freakylinks, Freaky ratings
Not surprisingly, Freakylinks stormed out of the box last Friday with an unimpressive 4.1 rating, far lower than Greed's average in the same time slot. Don't forget also that Greed premiered just 17 days after its inception, whereas Freakylinks had a website devoted to it for six months before the show even premiered.
It's enough to make a guy sick, really. Greed had a young, ravid fan base similar to shows like Roswell that, despite not having the best ratings in the world, were brought back. It's cheaper to produce than Freakylinks, it gets better ratings, yet the likelihood that we see it again on American TV (it is airing in Turkey and India now, however!) is slim. So slim, in fact, that the Savegreed.com site went down for good this week, just because I feel awful about getting people's hopes up that the show will come back, when Fox is so clueless about its programming schedule (aren't we all just chomping at the bit for I Want a Divorce!, destined to be next year's Who Wants to Marry a Multi-Millionaire fiasco?) that they just can't figure out that people want this show back.
In other rants...It seems like I'm not the only one who loves Street Smarts...early ratings show it's doing a lot better than most of the new syndie offerings...perhaps time slot improvements (it's on at midnite here in LA, which is a decent time to grab away some people bored with the second half of Letterman and Leno) are down the pike?...The Family Feud CD-ROM game earns a 9 out of 10 rating from Game Show Central. With the one detraction being the lack of authentic theme music, the game is otherwise quite solid. Louie Anderson can be heard and seen all over place during the game, the questions are challenging, the graphics are downright amazing, and Anderson's disco freestyle dance that closes the game makes it worth the $29.99 purchase price. I got mine at Target if you're having trouble locating it!