Your thoughts on DREW, please.

[Terry K]

My personal take on Drew this year has been this....no matter WHO was picked to go into this job, they'd have the same issues.  

Barker looked kind of robotic in 1972, and it took him HOW long to make the show his?  

We have to give Drew credit for a couple of things:

1.  He's not phoning it in, he's giving it his all.  

2.  He has brought more energy to the show than Barker was able to give.  

Let's face it, Drew ain't perfect, but he's alot better than the alternatives.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Terry K\' post=\'191412\' date=\'Jul 19 2008, 11:34 PM\']
My personal take on Drew this year has been this....no matter WHO was picked to go into this job, they'd have the same issues.[/quote]
I don't think that's necessarily the case. Or if it is it's a sad commentary on the state of Hollywood today.

I always go back to Kevin O'Connell on Go. Here's a guy who ALSO has never hosted a game show before, and he looked like the job fit him like a glove on the very first day.

Take away Drew Carey's fame and face recognition, and are you seriously telling me that there is nobody in Hollywood who could be doing the job more smoothly at this point in the game? Hell, I would suggest that there are people on this FORUM who would have it more down at this point.

Let me state again: I like Drew Carey as the host of TPiR. But I think he's also capable of being more than he currently is.

Let's face it, Drew ain't perfect, but he's alot better than the alternatives.

Two of the names we tossed around before Barker retired: Marc Summers. Todd Newton. Chuck Woolery's name came up at one point during the host search. Michael Burger.

Do you think Drew's doing a better job than you think any of those people would have done?

[JasonA1]

[quote name=\'Terry K\' post=\'191412\' date=\'Jul 20 2008, 02:34 AM\']
1.  He's not phoning it in, he's giving it his all.  

2.  He has brought more energy to the show than Barker was able to give.  
[/quote]

I'm a big Drew defender, but there are GOBS of moments and episodes over the season where these two statements couldn't appear farther from the truth. Love the guy, but the feeling seems to be not one of "Drew always sucked" but more of "Drew should be further along than he is." A lot of people commended him for what he could do right out of the barrel with the first shows...then he got a little more comfortable...then it seemed for the longest time there was no movement on the graph. He was only putting out so much energy, so much effort, etc. Come the end of the season, I saw some great performances, but they weren't every day still.

-Jason

[chris319]

Two of the names we tossed around before Barker retired: Marc Summers. Todd Newton. Chuck Woolery's name came up at one point during the host search. Michael Burger.

I have it on very high authority that everyone at Fremantle thought Mark L. Walberg was "the one", but CBS didn't see it that way and wouldn't give him an audition in 33 (instead they were "investing" in Dave Price). So Drew is in large part CBS' doing.

[JasonA1]

[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'191429\' date=\'Jul 20 2008, 02:26 PM\']
I have it on very high authority that everyone at Fremantle thought Mark L. Walberg was "the one"
[/quote]

I certainly wouldn't have dismissed it out of hand. Man's quick on his feet and a good TV personality - an ability to host just about anything. He could have done well.

-Jason

[Jimmy Owen]

[quote name=\'JasonA1\' post=\'191430\' date=\'Jul 20 2008, 02:34 PM\']
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'191429\' date=\'Jul 20 2008, 02:26 PM\']
I have it on very high authority that everyone at Fremantle thought Mark L. Walberg was "the one"
[/quote]

I certainly wouldn't have dismissed it out of hand. Man's quick on his feet and a good TV personality - an ability to host just about anything. He could have done well.

-Jason
[/quote]


Mark is a little too smart alecky on the shows I've seen him on, but maybe it was the nature of the shows.  It worked out okay, I guess.  He's got MOT and TP to keep him busy.

[Hastin]

[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'191433\' date=\'Jul 20 2008, 11:40 AM\']
He's got MOT and TP to keep him busy.
[/quote]

Plus, he's still got Antiques Roadshow...

[Neumms]

[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'191433\' date=\'Jul 20 2008, 01:40 PM\']
Mark is a little too smart alecky on the shows I've seen him on, but maybe it was the nature of the shows.  It worked out okay, I guess.  He's got MOT and TP to keep him busy.
[/quote]

I thought he was terrific on "Russian Roulette"--exactly the right amount of smart alecky, but I agree that's too much for TPIR.

The thing Drew gives that the Marks, Burger and Newton and don't is a measure of celebrity. I think the ratings would have fallen even further with any of them. TPIR with Drew has a lot more going for it than TPIR with some guy who isn't Barker, even if he hasn't mastered all the skill of hosting.

And Woolery's charm is that he's not always on top of things, which is only charming as long as it's a simple game, not 75 different games in one.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'191435\' date=\'Jul 20 2008, 12:26 PM\']
The thing Drew gives that the Marks, Burger and Newton and don't is a measure of celebrity. I think the ratings would have fallen even further with any of them.[/quote]
I don't think I disagree. Which is why the angle I'm approaching this discussion from is to remove that from the equation and focus solely on job performance.

[Speedy G]

Do you think Drew's doing a better job than you think any of those people would have done?

Answering this, I think, requires a better definition of "a better job".

Is it just about running the show smoothly?  If so, then, yeah, Drew does have moments where he's less than smooth.  The way the current format of the show is, he needs to run it like a railroad; if it derails even a little bit, the rest of the show is a rush job to try and stay on schedule.

Is it about making the studio audience happy?  If so, he's doing a fine job.

Is it about carrying the proper energy level the show demands, day in and day out?  If so, he has his ups and downs: one day, very slow and deliberate, and the next day, cracking jokes like mad and bouncing around.

Is it about keeping the viewers?  If so, he's managed to keep about 85% of Bob's audience (and I'd be interested to see the demographics on the dropoff), which doesn't sound too bad to me.

Drew is not a perfect, polished host, but that's OK to me, because he does a good enough job of hosting, and brings a completely different energy to the show that makes it feel fresh all over again.  I think if they hire any of those other names, they would be more of a "replacement" host, put there to try and be the next best thing to Bob.  Would they be smooth, free of awkward moments and poised on the reveals?  Sure.  However, the audience would surely respond with "you can try, but you sir are no Bob Barker" and turn off in droves.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Speedy G\' post=\'191446\' date=\'Jul 20 2008, 01:50 PM\']
Drew is not a perfect, polished host, but that's OK to me, because he does a good enough job of hosting, and brings a completely different energy to the show that makes it feel fresh all over again.[/quote]
I agree. The point everyone else is discussing is whether, at this point, he should be better than he is.

Is your answer to that question "no, because this is what Drew Carey is, and that's good enough for me?" 'Cuz that's a fair answer, if that's what you think, but I'm just trying to get what you think straight.

[beatlefreak84]

I have to say that, overall, I've been very pleased with the way Drew has handled the show.  I was so glad to see he didn't try to go and be "the next Bob Barker" and made the show his own with his style and sense of humor, both of which I enjoy (yes; I admit I enjoyed The DC Show...well, before it got so outlandish).

That being said, however, I do cut him some slack for having to learn one of the busiest shows on television, but not all slack.  I couldn't agree more with the points about him being overpaid, though, so, that aside, yes; I do think he could be more polished, especially with the reveals for showcase winners (and especially DSW's) and some of the other little things like game rules (but, heck; even Barker wasn't batting 1.000 on those!).

BUT, I will say that I've probably enjoyed watching TPIR more this season than in most any other season.  Do I think that Drew was the best choice out of all the names batted around?  Probably not (my vote was for Summers), but he's definitely been a good one, and I'm happy to defend that choice to my family and friends who just can't stomach the show without Barker.

However, if I knew they were going to pay him so much, then I should've auditioned...heck; they gave Mario Lopez...and...ugh...Dave Price cracks at it...

Anthony

[Speedy G]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'191447\' date=\'Jul 20 2008, 04:55 PM\']
[quote name=\'Speedy G\' post=\'191446\' date=\'Jul 20 2008, 01:50 PM\']
Drew is not a perfect, polished host, but that's OK to me, because he does a good enough job of hosting, and brings a completely different energy to the show that makes it feel fresh all over again.[/quote]
I agree. The point everyone else is discussing is whether, at this point, he should be better than he is.

Is your answer to that question "no, because this is what Drew Carey is, and that's good enough for me?" 'Cuz that's a fair answer, if that's what you think, but I'm just trying to get what you think straight.
[/quote]
The impression I've got from the thread is that "better than he is" actually means "should be better at Price is Right hosting mechanics than this after a year of experience", but I could be wrong about that.

He could be "better", I guess, but I don't think it would make much positive difference with the way he's hosting the show.  I prefer Drew being Drew over Drew trying too hard to be perfect at everything like Bob; and it's such a chasm between Bob and Drew that it would probably be counterproductive to be significantly "better" at this point.

If his time on Whose Line is any indication, where he gradually slid into the role over a couple of seasons, I think his progress to date is fine, and there's plenty more progress to come.  A few years from now, we'll see.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Speedy G\' post=\'191488\' date=\'Jul 20 2008, 07:48 PM\']
He could be "better", I guess, but I don't think it would make much positive difference with the way he's hosting the show.  I prefer Drew being Drew over Drew trying too hard to be perfect at everything like Bob; and it's such a chasm between Bob and Drew that it would probably be counterproductive to be significantly "better" at this point.[/quote]
Fair enough. I absolutely respect your right to an opinion. I don't know if I necessarily agree with it, but I respect your right to have it.

[Neumms]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'191447\' date=\'Jul 20 2008, 03:55 PM\']
I agree. The point everyone else is discussing is whether, at this point, he should be better than he is.

Is your answer to that question "no, because this is what Drew Carey is, and that's good enough for me?" 'Cuz that's a fair answer, if that's what you think, but I'm just trying to get what you think straight.
[/quote]

Yeah, he should be smoother. Maybe it's because they haven't had to break in a new host since Dougie Davidson 12 years ago. Maybe because this is one guy that they had to lure to the job, not an eager audition candidate. Maybe Roger Dobkowitz critiqued Drew's performance once too often.

It doesn't help that Drew's most-watched episodes are the prime-time affairs he taped with the flu. (And the poorly thought-out $1M rules.)