Author Topic: Pyramid (Read 10621 times)

Robert Hutchinson · « **Reply #15 on:** January 04, 2007, 05:46:46 PM »

The judging was all over the place, the way-too-cutesy main game categories, bad pacing, seventeen camera angles in the Winner's Circle . . .

(. . . celebrity "briefing", "Things Tom Cruise's Dentist Would Say", "buddy", no buildup to the Super Six . . .)

tvwxman · « **Reply #16 on:** January 04, 2007, 05:50:32 PM »

[quote name=\'TimK2003\' post=\'142164\' date=\'Jan 4 2007, 04:10 PM\']
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'142160\' date=\'Jan 4 2007, 04:32 PM\']
The main issue I had with the show is they took the focus off the game/contestants and focused too much on the celebrities and whatever project they had going on at the time.

That, and the Winner's Circle blew.
[/quote]

In addition, you never had the same set of celebrities doing a whole week.

Granted, you had some no-name B, C & D-listed dogs in the celebrity mix during the syndicated 100K run that you had to endure for 5 days in a row, but that (along with returning contestants) allowed consistency and you knew the shows were running in some sort of order.
[/quote]
At that point in Pyramistory, you could have a C-list celeb, but you were damn sure they could play the game well.

One of my major gripes in Donnymid's time was , you had only one episode as a contestant to play, and to win serious coin, you had to climb the pyramid twice.

Good luck doing 'that' with Jillian Barberie or Estelle Harris, or many others that barely qualified as 'celebrities'.

If I had to pay my own way to be a contestant, then showed up on tape day to find out that I'd be playing with Jillian, I would have hunted down executive consulatant Harry Friedman and had a few words .

Joe Mello · « **Reply #17 on:** January 04, 2007, 07:42:06 PM »

[quote name=\'tvwxman\' post=\'142173\' date=\'Jan 4 2007, 05:50 PM\']
One of my major gripes in Donnymid's time was , you had only one episode as a contestant to play, and to win serious coin, you had to climb the pyramid twice.[/quote]

I didn't know $10,000 wasn't "serious coin." Besides, I never really liked how you get rewarded for losing WC's in the 70's and 80's.

Whenever there's a discussion about likes and dislikes (....okay, just dislikes) about Donnymid, it makes me wish I could see some of the early 10K or Cullen shows because I think those would be the most comparable products: 10K for skill level and Cullen for formatting. Then I might be able to see just why you people think it's such a gawd-awful product. I admit it wasn't great, but it wasn't horrible.

I have this feeling that UK Pyramid isn't going to be a carbon copy. I'm probably wrong.

BrandonFG · « **Reply #18 on:** January 04, 2007, 07:44:57 PM »

The others summed up the same gripes I had. It was a decent effort that needed lots of work, both with the rules and aesthetics.

-The several camera angles...why not just stick to a static shot of celeb and contestant? It's a game show, not MTV
-Too much celebrity pimpage
-Revolving celebs and contestants killed the consistency IMO. Why not give the celebs the chance to get better during the week, and maybe even get a good chemistry with the contestants?
-The set...Pyramid is a suspenseful game show, but it's natural suspense. You don't need dark mood lighting to build up the drama. Save that mess for Millionaire
-The "theme song"...is this a rave or a game show?

On a 1-10 scale, it got a 6. Was something I'd watch if nothing else was on. Meh.

clemon79 · « **Reply #19 on:** January 04, 2007, 07:47:50 PM »

[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'142185\' date=\'Jan 4 2007, 04:42 PM\']
Besides, I never really liked how you get rewarded for losing WC's in the 70's and 80's.
[/quote]
In the 70's? Okay. In the 80's? You're being rewarded for winning the front game. And you're a fool if you try to duck ANY Winner's Circle, since how you do there was what decided if you got to come back the next day.

BrandonFG · « **Reply #20 on:** January 04, 2007, 07:49:39 PM »

[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'142185\' date=\'Jan 4 2007, 07:42 PM\']
I didn't know $10,000 wasn't "serious coin." Besides, I never really liked how you get rewarded for losing WC's in the 70's and 80's.
[/quote]
I don't know what you mean by "got rewarded for losing WC's"...you get consolation money for every category you identified. It's fair enough, and Osmond's show did the same thing.

Quote

Whenever there's a discussion about likes and dislikes (....okay, just dislikes) about Donnymid, it makes me wish I could see some of the early 10K or Cullen shows because I think those would be the most comparable products: 10K for skill level and Cullen for formatting. Then I might be able to see just why you people think it's such a gawd-awful product. I admit it wasn't great, but it wasn't horrible.

I have this feeling that UK Pyramid isn't going to be a carbon copy. I'm probably wrong.

I don't think anyone felt the show was horrible, but to say it compares to the prior versions (not counting Davidson) would be horribly wrong. Like I said above, it needed work. It wasn't Card Sharks 01 bad, but it wasn't a masterpiece either.

They got it right in the 70s and 80s. Why they couldn't do what worked then (with a 2002 update) is beyond me, and that's the problem I have with many 2000s revivals. Producers try too hard to modernize the show, and it looks like an episode of TRL.

clemon79 · « **Reply #21 on:** January 04, 2007, 08:18:01 PM »

[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'142191\' date=\'Jan 4 2007, 04:49 PM\']
I don't know what you mean by "got rewarded for losing WC's"...you get consolation money for every category you identified. It's fair enough, and Osmond's show did the same thing.
[/quote]
I think what he's saying is that if you duck the first WC, then you're actually playing for more money if you make it to the second one then you would be if you won it.

Unsurprisingly, this reflects a significant lack of reasoning on his part, as well as an utter inability to see the big picture.

Robert Hutchinson · « **Reply #22 on:** January 04, 2007, 08:53:23 PM »

One could argue (not very strongly) that it's not the best aesthetic. A player who wins their second Winner's Circle of the day is always going to get the same money that the "better" player who won both Winner's Circles gets. But that has nothing at all to do with an individual contestant's reward for doing well.

tvwxman · « **Reply #23 on:** January 04, 2007, 10:15:15 PM »

Good discussion on the overall scoring issues that were a minor issue in every version of the Pyramid (Thanks Bob for being so spendy!)...

But to clarify my own post, I was referring to the fact that to make it to the tournament for 100K (Is 'that' serious coin enough for you, Joe? Sheesh), you had to go 2 for 2 in the Winners Circle in one show. That's it, no other tries allowed.

Someone who had Mary Cadorette as a partner could do it. Someone with Jillian Barberie could not. It was a big flaw in the 2002 scoring system.

/Would love to have Mary Cadorette as a partner.
//Yep, that kind.
///Oh what the hell, same could be said for Jillian.
////If I had a muzzle handy.
/////For her, not me, dumbass.

Fedya · « **Reply #24 on:** January 04, 2007, 11:51:09 PM »

[quote name=\'tvwxman\' post=\'142208\' date=\'Jan 4 2007, 10:15 PM\']
But to clarify my own post, I was referring to the fact that to make it to the tournament for 100K (Is 'that' serious coin enough for you, Joe? Sheesh), you had to go 2 for 2 in the Winners Circle in one show. That's it, no other tries allowed.

Someone who had Mary Cadorette as a partner could do it. Someone with Jillian Barberie could not. It was a big flaw in the 2002 scoring system.
[/quote]
Also, if the first Winner's Circle wasn't won, it pretty much made the whole second half of the show pointless. There's no competition to see who the "champion" will be, since neither of these contestants can ever come back.

clemon79 · « **Reply #25 on:** January 05, 2007, 12:24:04 AM »

[quote name=\'Fedya\' post=\'142232\' date=\'Jan 4 2007, 08:51 PM\']
Also, if the first Winner's Circle wasn't won, it pretty much made the whole second half of the show pointless. There's no competition to see who the "champion" will be, since neither of these contestants can ever come back.
[/quote]
They play a second game, and the winner of that game gets a shot at $10,000.

Where in the HELL is that pointless?

TLEberle · « **Reply #26 on:** January 05, 2007, 01:08:43 AM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'142234\' date=\'Jan 4 2007, 09:24 PM\']
[quote name=\'Fedya\' post=\'142232\' date=\'Jan 4 2007, 08:51 PM\']
Also, if the first Winner's Circle wasn't won, it pretty much made the whole second half of the show pointless. There's no competition to see who the "champion" will be, since neither of these contestants can ever come back.[/quote]They play a second game, and the winner of that game gets a shot at $10,000.

Where in the HELL is that pointless?
[/quote]Maybe a case can be made for the fact that if no one wins $10k in the first act, $25k won't be won in the second, and thus no $100k chance exists. But Chris is right. I wouldn't turn down a single chance to win $10,000, even if I knew that I was missing out on up to $115,000 more. $10k is a nice safety net in the bank account, I assure you.

The one thing that I found tolerable about the 2002 iteration of Pyramid was that whole thing. But if you don't hace a chance to come back and do it again on the next show, there's really no point. I'm surprised Mr. Stewart didn't think of that when he had the nighttime $25k running.

Craig Karlberg · « **Reply #27 on:** January 05, 2007, 04:50:45 AM »

OK, I'm trying to picture what the UK version looks like. Trouble is, it's just exactly what Donnymid looked like in 2002. The Brits can have that version & screw with it as they please. Besides, our last version wasn't even as close to what Pyramid was back in the day.

Now that Donny's off to England, where's it goona leave the revival of NTT? Up in the air? Dead in the water? Gee I hope not on both counts.

DrBear · « **Reply #28 on:** January 05, 2007, 07:55:23 AM »

I don't think Donny running off to England for a few weeks would hurt the NTT revival ... Brit "series" are usually shorter, and if Donny and the crew hustle, they can get one done in a couple of weeks.

BrentW · « **Reply #29 on:** January 05, 2007, 07:59:28 AM »

OK, I'll go ahead and join in on the ass-kicking Osmond's Pyramid. :-) The Brits are in for a real treat! Hehe.

I, for one, hated the TV screens. I think most of the people who WOULD have watched Pyramid (and thus made it a ratings winner) actually like the trilons. I don't understand modernizing things for the sake of modernizing itself. But this is not a matter of opinion -- I'm sure there are those who liked the TV screens. By the way, I didn't bitch and moan when Vanna got the touch-screens -- I'm all for updating if it ADDS to the game, which the touch screens did, by introducing Toss-Ups, which spread the money around more. But the "trilons in the Winner's Circle" thing is such a part of pop culture ("Things that are Comcastic", anyone?) that I think having graphics of "What Tom Cruise Might Say" superimposed on the screen made it seem slightly.......sterile. Not friendly. Yes, to who said it seemed like TRL.

Also, the Winner's Circle was all about drama. This is why the show was successful. The damn clock added all the drama in the world on the 80's versions! In the Osmond version, when they put in a SILENT clock but with very yucky sounding synthesized music underneath it, the whole thing just seemed very....hollow.

And don't even get me started on how dense the celebs were, and how iffy the judging was. I loved how strict the Clark/Davidson versions were -- they watched you like a freaking hawk. "Sag" for "droop"? ZAP. "Revolver" fpr "Parts of a Gun"? ZAP. I saw an eppy of the Clark version today when Nathan Cook started to move a bit in the WC on "What a Belly Dancer Might Say". Of course, he got zapped. I think the Osmond Pyramid's judge would have let Nathan do an entire hula dance (and they would have provided the music! LOL).

They could have done it right, but they screwed everything up. I'm exactly the kind of demo they want too, and one who would be inclined to watch their show: a 18-49 male with expendable income who loves freaking game shows. But even *I* couldn't care about this version. I watched it for Vicki Lawrence and Dick Clark, and that was about all I could stand. Adios, amigo.