"Million $ Password" update.

[DoorNumberFour]

So I got a call this morning from one of the ladies I first auditioned for.

Her words:

"Because of your exposure to the material, we won't be casting you for the first six episodes."

Which, in my eyes, translates to:

"You're too good at this game to be on the show. We want the drama of having people that suck at Password."

If this is the case, doesn't it completely defeat the purpose of an audition for a game show if they DON'T pick people who are GREAT at the game?

Then again, maybe this is what a lot of us were expecting when we got word of this show.

Anyway, they wanted me to come down for another development run-through.

But $50 doesn't really beat a chance at a million.

Ah, well.

[Joe Mello]

[quote name=\'DoorNumberFour\' post=\'171979\' date=\'Dec 13 2007, 10:21 AM\']"Because of your exposure to the material, we won't be casting you for the first six episodes."

Which, in my eyes, translates to:

"You're too good at this game to be on the show. We want the drama of having people that suck at Password."

If this is the case, doesn't it completely defeat the purpose of an audition for a game show if they DON'T pick people who are GREAT at the game?[/quote]
Not really.  If they're good CC's, they're picking people who are GOOD at the game.  The "great" people would a) win ludicrous amounts of money that the budget can't support over the long run and b) suck out all the drama from the game.  Those that are good will still do well, but will need to get lucky on the higher levels in order to win the big bucks.  Plus, if it's a head-to-head thing, then the lower-end competition has a better chance to pull off an upset.

I understand your frustration, but at least you're in essence a beta-tester to help M$P from becoming a total stinkfest.

[chad1m]

Whatever you do, please accept the gig to run-through some more. You seem to know what you're doing and talking about, and this show needs to be decent at best.

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'171980\' date=\'Dec 13 2007, 10:44 AM\']Not really.  If they're good CC's, they're picking people who are GOOD at the game.  The "great" people would a) win ludicrous amounts of money that the budget can't support over the long run and b) suck out all the drama from the game.  Those that are good will still do well, but will need to get lucky on the higher levels in order to win the big bucks.[/quote]
Still, there was a time when the ability to play a game well was something sought by contestant coordinators, and it's becoming clearer that this is no longer the case.  Look at Fifth Grader, where the goal almost by definition is to have average-or-worse Q&A players.  Even Jeopardy is more cautious these days about having people who are "too good".  Post-Ken, their application now asks potential contestants whether or not they have any involvement with NAQT, pretty much the leading quiz-bowl service in the country these days.

Don't get me wrong, coordinators have always had to balance the criteria of good skills and good personalities.  Lately, though, it just seems as though showing that you have good game playing skills works against you, and there was a time when that just wasn't the case.

[Clay Zambo]

[quote name=\'DoorNumberFour\' post=\'171979\' date=\'Dec 13 2007, 10:21 AM\']
"Because of your exposure to the material, we won't be casting you for the first six episodes."
[/quote]

They told me the same thing, but I hadn't auditioned; I'd just applied for the developmental play.  Since I saw game material, I was ineligible for the first six episodes.  They didn't rule out the future, though.  

I wondered if it was a matter of not wanting to write more stacks of words, although I suspect that MDP isn't a Guild show.

[Jimmy Owen]

Writing stacks of words?  I don't know if they are aware of this, but a guy named Webster put out a book containing pretty much every word that could be used in any game of Password.

[Clay Zambo]

[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'171989\' date=\'Dec 13 2007, 12:44 PM\']
Writing stacks of words?  I don't know if they are aware of this, but a guy named Webster put out a book containing pretty much every word that could be used in any game of Password.
[/quote]

I know you're kidding, but I know too that they work very hard to make sure the words in the million-dollar game are possible--but just barely.

[DoorNumberFour]

I accepted the run-through offer.

They said they offered it to me because I was so incredibly good at the game, so hopefully I can bring something valuable to the table in terms of pointing out flaws and whatnot.

Not like they would listen, but still.

[Neumms]

Hasn't "Wheel of Fortune" long been discarding applicants who are too good at the game? Seems I heard about that years ago.

I suppose part of the issue with Password is a player being way better at the game than the celebrity.

[uncamark]

[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'172013\' date=\'Dec 13 2007, 03:12 PM\']
Hasn't "Wheel of Fortune" long been discarding applicants who are too good at the game? Seems I heard about that years ago.

I suppose part of the issue with Password is a player being way better at the game than the celebrity.
[/quote]

Back in the day, they played the game over the phone with the celeb to make sure that s/he at least had a grasp of how the game worked.

Of course, back in the Ludden days they could easily turn down the incompetent.  Probably not so much these days.

[Joe Mello]

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'171986\' date=\'Dec 13 2007, 12:25 PM\']Still, there was a time when the ability to play a game well was something sought by contestant coordinators, and it's becoming clearer that this is no longer the case. [. . .] Even Jeopardy is more cautious these days about having people who are "too good".  Post-Ken, their application now asks potential contestants whether or not they have any involvement with NAQT, pretty much the leading quiz-bowl service in the country these days.

Don't get me wrong, coordinators have always had to balance the criteria of good skills and good personalities.  Lately, though, it just seems as though showing that you have good game playing skills works against you, and there was a time when that just wasn't the case.[/quote]
I think another thing CC's have to balance is financial liability.  With the Mo' Money that litters game shows now, you have to prevent too many winners winning too much too often.  I was never really of the belief that CC's never excluded the end of the contestant pool (feel free to prove me wrong), but went from the middle.  Now that the dollar values are increased, they've narrowed their definition of "middle" and maybe shifted it to further insulate themselves.

[MSTieScott]

[quote name=\'DoorNumberFour\' post=\'171979\' date=\'Dec 13 2007, 10:21 AM\']Her words:

"Because of your exposure to the material, we won't be casting you for the first six episodes."

Which, in my eyes, translates to:

"You're too good at this game to be on the show. We want the drama of having people that suck at Password."[/quote]I have no connection with the new Password, but I'd take the statement at face value. When Shop 'til You Drop was revived and revamped, I worked for one day as a production assistant (they hired me during a busy day as a favor to an acquaintance of mine). In one of the rooms, I saw game material that they had been using during development, and then saw it again when the shows began airing. Granted, it's not quite the same as picking a different set of words, but it very well could be that they want to use some of the same material when they begin taping.

--
Scott Robinson

[TLEberle]

[quote name=\'DoorNumberFour\' post=\'171979\' date=\'Dec 13 2007, 07:21 AM\']So I got a call this morning from one of the ladies I first auditioned for.

Her words:

"Because of your exposure to the material, we won't be casting you for the first six episodes."

Which, in my eyes, translates to:

"You're too good at this game to be on the show. We want the drama of having people that suck at Password."[/quote]In my adenoids, why do they have to give a reason? If they say "Thank you for your participation, we won't be calling you back," well, that's it then, isn't it? It really doesn't matter what reason they give, does it?

If this is the case, doesn't it completely defeat the purpose of an audition for a game show if they DON'T pick people who are GREAT at the game?

No. I can give the performance of my lifetime auditioning for a play, and I might be "better" than the rest of the contenders, but if I'm not what the director is looking for, T.S.

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'171986\' date=\'Dec 13 2007, 09:25 AM\']Don't get me wrong, coordinators have always had to balance the criteria of good skills and good personalities.  Lately, though, it just seems as though showing that you have good game playing skills works against you, and there was a time when that just wasn't the case.[/quote]But if "obnoxious people who can't come up with synonyms" is what they think will make the best show, then that's what they're going to cast for. Whether or not that actually makes for a good, watchable or popular show is a different question entirely.

[chris319]

Back in the day, they played the game over the phone with the celeb to make sure that s/he at least had a grasp of how the game worked.

Nope, they came to the office and auditioned. Same with MG. For whatever reason I still remember the day Gordon MacRae came to the office to audition for P+ (he was not booked).

hopefully I can bring something valuable to the table in terms of pointing out flaws and whatnot

Password debuted in 1961. I would hope they have the flaws worked out by now (if they play it without a word authority, it WILL be flawed).

[TwoInchQuad]

[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'172092\' date=\'Dec 14 2007, 12:06 PM\']
Password debuted in 1961. I would hope they have the flaws worked out by now (if they play it without a word authority, it WILL be flawed).
[/quote]

Were you privy to the discussions about getting rid of the "doc in the box"...?  Or was it just a budget thing?

-Kevin