Author Topic: The Rich List gone (Read 15652 times)

TLEberle · « **Reply #45 on:** November 06, 2006, 01:11:22 PM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'137136\' date=\'Nov 6 2006, 10:07 AM\']
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'137133\' date=\'Nov 6 2006, 10:02 AM\']
After all, if a contestant on show seven goes to the AP and says "I didn't get paid when I went on a cancelled game show!" the reporter is going to laugh derisively and push the 'erase' button on their voice mail recorder.
[/quote]
Oh, I REALLY don't agree with that. This is the kind of story that tabloid television is MADE for. I have no doubt whatsoever that one of these "wronged" (and, again, I want to stress that I understand quite well that they have no legal recourse) contestants would be able to attract the interest of _someone_ in the news media. (Especially in the throes of a sweeps period.)
[/quote]I hadn't thought of that angle. Now, here's something to consider. Let's say you're FOX, and Timmy the Disgruntled Contestant comes to you and says, "I won $250,000 on your show, and if I don't get paid, I'm going to squee to The Insider and Access Hollywood and anyone who will listen."

How much would it be worth to FOX to keep this sort of thing quiet, and how far along could this sort of thing go before you get into the realm of blackmail and so on.

Neumms · « **Reply #46 on:** November 06, 2006, 01:54:20 PM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'137136\' date=\'Nov 6 2006, 01:07 PM\']
This is the kind of story that tabloid television is MADE for. I have no doubt whatsoever that one of these "wronged" (and, again, I want to stress that I understand quite well that they have no legal recourse) contestants would be able to attract the interest of _someone_ in the news media. (Especially in the throes of a sweeps period.)
[/quote]

However, the news media most likely to run with it is Fox.

clemon79 · « **Reply #47 on:** November 06, 2006, 01:59:22 PM »

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'137137\' date=\'Nov 6 2006, 10:11 AM\']
How much would it be worth to FOX to keep this sort of thing quiet
[/quote]
What, is there an echo in here?
[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'137140\' date=\'Nov 6 2006, 10:54 AM\']
However, the news media most likely to run with it is Fox.
[/quote]
Touche, sir.

cweaver · « **Reply #48 on:** November 06, 2006, 02:17:16 PM »

I did hear today (from a source who would definitely know) that as of right now, Fox *does* plan to return it to the schedule at "a later date."

TLEberle · « **Reply #49 on:** November 06, 2006, 02:22:46 PM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'137142\' date=\'Nov 6 2006, 10:59 AM\']
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'137137\' date=\'Nov 6 2006, 10:11 AM\']
How much would it be worth to FOX to keep this sort of thing quiet
[/quote]
What, is there an echo in here?[/quote]Everyone else was doing it, so I thought I'd give it a try...it's the last time that'll happen.

What I meant was if FOX were to say "Sorry your show was canned, here's $25,000 to cover your expenses and the fact that you won a few games." Some greedy person might say "Not enough, I want $150,000 or I blow the whistle on the whole operation," even if they only won $75,000 during the show. Monumentally stupid, of course, but you never know.

chris319 · « **Reply #50 on:** November 06, 2006, 02:58:43 PM »

[quote name=\'cweaver\' post=\'137143\' date=\'Nov 6 2006, 11:17 AM\']
I did hear today (from a source who would definitely know) that as of right now, Fox *does* plan to return it to the schedule at "a later date."
[/quote]
That wouldn't surprise me one bit. They've got nine unaired shows in the can. I've got to think that on some of those shows the contestants' winnings were relatively modest. If that is the case, they can afford to air those shows without going to the cleaners, hoping that a different night or different time slot or different alignment of the stars will make a difference in the ratings. In the meantime they can frantically rework the game and the prize structure to have fewer big-money payouts.

Quote

here's something to consider. Let's say you're FOX, and Timmy the Disgruntled Contestant comes to you and says, "I won $250,000 on your show, and if I don't get paid, I'm going to squee to The Insider and Access Hollywood and anyone who will listen."

How much would it be worth to FOX to keep this sort of thing quiet

Zero, zip, zilch, nada, nothing. Fox merely has to point to the applicable part of the agreement and it makes Timmy look like a dork who can't even read a contract he is signing.

Robert Hutchinson · « **Reply #51 on:** November 06, 2006, 06:25:15 PM »

[quote name=\'tvrandywest\' post=\'137130\' date=\'Nov 6 2006, 12:52 PM\']
I gotta disagree on the lawsuit angle. Let me clarify my earlier post.

The reason the Rich List is not on FOX's schedule and is apparently cancelled is because of very low ratings. Beyond that, the decision as to whether or not to air the remaining 9 episodes is likely affected by the fact that unaired game shows need not award "winnings" to its contestants. That is very likely one of the factors behind choosing whether or not to "burn off" the episodes in the can, but not a factor in the decision as to whether or not to cancel plans to tape future episodes. A hit is a hit, and a stiff is a stiff. No matter what the total of the winnings in the unaired episodes, if the show garnered ratings it would still be on.[/quote]
The following is in no way intended to doubt your description of this situation, Randy, or the decency of the people involved. But this is a perfect example of a "fungible" situation. Short of trusting the people who are telling you which is which, there is no way to discern between "show cancelled due to bad ratings, episodes not burned off due to no-pay clause" and "show cancelled due to no-pay clause". It's like the eBay auctions where someone claims to be selling a shiny rock, with a "free gift" of a bunch of DVDs--except those, of course, are always blatantly obvious.

tvrandywest · « **Reply #52 on:** November 06, 2006, 08:41:15 PM »

[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' post=\'137164\' date=\'Nov 6 2006, 04:25 PM\']
[quote name=\'tvrandywest\' post=\'137130\' date=\'Nov 6 2006, 12:52 PM\']
I gotta disagree on the lawsuit angle. Let me clarify my earlier post.

The reason the Rich List is not on FOX's schedule and is apparently cancelled is because of very low ratings. Beyond that, the decision as to whether or not to air the remaining 9 episodes is likely affected by the fact that unaired game shows need not award "winnings" to its contestants. That is very likely one of the factors behind choosing whether or not to "burn off" the episodes in the can, but not a factor in the decision as to whether or not to cancel plans to tape future episodes. A hit is a hit, and a stiff is a stiff. No matter what the total of the winnings in the unaired episodes, if the show garnered ratings it would still be on.[/quote]
The following is in no way intended to doubt your description of this situation, Randy, or the decency of the people involved. But this is a perfect example of a "fungible" situation. Short of trusting the people who are telling you which is which, there is no way to discern between "show cancelled due to bad ratings, episodes not burned off due to no-pay clause" and "show cancelled due to no-pay clause". It's like the eBay auctions where someone claims to be selling a shiny rock, with a "free gift" of a bunch of DVDs--except those, of course, are always blatantly obvious.
[/quote]

I agree in general principle. But the known commodity in this case was the poor viewership of that first episode... south of 5 million viewers. There are that many sets on in American living rooms while the "viewers" are in the bathroom! ;-)

Randy
tvrandywest.com

Robert Hutchinson · « **Reply #53 on:** November 06, 2006, 08:58:33 PM »

Well, what do you expect when you keep talking about "unfinished business"?

TimK2003 · « **Reply #54 on:** November 07, 2006, 09:36:11 AM »

[quote name=\'tvrandywest\' post=\'137182\' date=\'Nov 6 2006, 09:41 PM\']
I agree in general principle. But the known commodity in this case was the poor viewership of that first episode... south of 5 million viewers. There are that many sets on in American living rooms while the "viewers" are in the bathroom! ;-)
[/quote]

What FOX shold have done is at least had one more airing before pulling the plug. And if they did, they could have pulled a Deal or No Deal in which they hype to death some Big Money Spoiler, assuming there was a lot of money on the line in the next ep.

clemon79 · « **Reply #55 on:** November 07, 2006, 10:23:06 AM »

[quote name=\'TimK2003\' post=\'137212\' date=\'Nov 7 2006, 06:36 AM\']
What FOX shold have done is at least had one more airing before pulling the plug.
[/quote]
....why?

Quote

And if they did, they could have pulled a Deal or No Deal in which they hype to death some Big Money Spoiler, assuming there was a lot of money on the line in the next ep.

....why?

Clearly Fox determined that they would save more money from NOT running the show than they would have made in advertising revenue by running it.

I'm not sure why so many people are going all Thad Dixon and refusing to look at the bottom line.

Johnissoevil · « **Reply #56 on:** November 08, 2006, 02:36:57 AM »

[quote name=\'MikeK\' post=\'136830\' date=\'Nov 3 2006, 09:22 PM\']
http://www.variety.com/article/VR111795328...yid=14&cs=1

Will the ghost of Jackie Gleason show up on FOX this Wednesday to apologize?
[/quote]

And yet, TTD '90 and Cram got longer runs....