A Few Thoughts About TPIR

[ClockGameJohn]

[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'202020\' date=\'Nov 19 2008, 07:31 PM\']
I think calling Roger Dobkowitz a master of anything except kissing Barker's butt is giving him too much credit. His line-ups were dull, with the same few one prize games and boring car games repeated ad nauseum. If I never see Squeeze Play and Money Game again, it'll be too soon. Even worse, some games were never played in the first half. Others weren't allowed in the second. No one knows why. This made the line-ups not only dull for frequent viewers, but predictable. To me, it felt like he was phoning it in.
[/quote]

A few lineups from this year:

Freeze Frame
Hole in One
?Switch?
Bonus Game
One Wrong Price
Lucky $even

Bargain Game
Plinko
One Away
Coming or Going
Check Out (Car)
Safe Crackers (Car)

Money Game
Balance Game
Step Up
Ten Chances
Magic #
Double Prices

These were from the last week of shows planned by Roger.

Lucky $even last, Ten Chances fourth, One Wrong Price fifth, back to back non-car games played for cars...yeah, phoning it in.  Give me a break.

And obviously, I'm sure you understand, there are only so many short games on the show and they are needed in order to create lineups with the longer, generally "better" games.  Squeeze Play and Money Game just fall into those "short" categories.

[TroubadourNando]

IMHO, people should stop crying about Drew, he's had JUST A LITTLE OVER ONE YEAR to do things. Alex's improvement on J! is significant over his first 2 years, same for Sajak, same for Viera.

Vieira can be disputed (I'm not the only one who hates her) and both Sajak and Trebek took over much simpler formats.

That said, a host putting in a barely acceptable first year performance then imploding on himself in his second year would be considered unacceptable in any other case. How long do you think Bert Parks would have lasted trying to keep his head above water with the complex demands of Hollywood Squares? What about Jon Bauman for that matter? Or Ross Shafer? None of them got "two to three years" to prove what they had. Parks never made it past his pilot, Bauman was off in nine weeks, and Shafer fell in a year.

[Dbacksfan12]

[quote name=\'ClockGameJohn\' post=\'202027\' date=\'Nov 19 2008, 08:30 PM\']Lucky $even last, Ten Chances fourth, One Wrong Price fifth, back to back non-car games played for cars...yeah, phoning it in.  Give me a break.[/quote]3 episodes over a relatively large sample size doesn't really say much.

Not that I'm taking any particular side here...but I should note that Lucky Seven was played first (and only first) for a very long time.  That said, the new rule on cash/car games first only is about the same, IMO.

[Steve Gavazzi]

[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'202032\' date=\'Nov 19 2008, 08:55 PM\']Not that I'm taking any particular side here...but I should note that Lucky Seven was played first (and only first) for a very long time.  That said, the new rule on cash/car games first only is about the same, IMO.[/quote]
Please show me where the rule about Lucky $even stated, "No other pricing game can be played first."

[Dbacksfan12]

[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'202036\' date=\'Nov 19 2008, 09:21 PM\']
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'202032\' date=\'Nov 19 2008, 08:55 PM\']Not that I'm taking any particular side here...but I should note that Lucky Seven was played first (and only first) for a very long time.  That said, the new rule on cash/car games first only is about the same, IMO.[/quote]
Please show me where the rule about Lucky $even stated, "No other pricing game can be played first."
[/quote]That's not what I said. I'm refering to this, directly from the G-R FAQ:

Starting on March 18, 1999, excluding primetime episodes, Lucky $even was only played as the first game; this was done to accomodate the stage crew, as the game's car takes up a great deal of space backstage.

[CarShark]

[quote name=\'TroubadourNando\' post=\'202024\' date=\'Nov 19 2008, 09:03 PM\']
(As I type this I hope I'm not getting into an argument with one of the "Bob Barker and Roger Dobkowitz are Satan's Offspring" people from GSN....I expect better here)[/quote]I don't think he nor Barker are eeeeeeeeeevil. I've always respected Barker's performance, but I don't like him as a person. Just because he can turn his charm on and off is no reason to fawn over him. Likewise, I have my own opinion of Roger Dobkowitz and what he has (and often hasn't) done while in charge.  And "master"? Puh, followed closely by a -leaze. Just because I won't pray to the Roadies favorite martyr doesn't mean I'm not being reasonable.

Roger understood that the first game sets the mood for the show, and that It's In The Bag is too unreliable to lean on for that.

BS. If that was really the case, then why play Golden Road or Triple Play or 3 Strikes first? Seriously. Those were common occurrences during his run as producer. All of those games are equally (or even more unreliable) than It's In the Bag. 3 Strikes is a luck-based game. You can't get more unreliable than that. All of those games get won maybe a couple of times a season. Why play them? To get a BIG winner. You could have a BIG loser, but that's the risk you take. It's the same idea they're (as I said earlier, IMO) taking too far right now by only playing big prize games first. That's what I mean by too focused.

And honestly, you're complaining about seeing Squeeze Play and Money Game too often? Have you actually watched any of the last four to six weeks of shows?

Did I say I liked it now? I didn't like it then. I don't like it now.

Truthfully, I don't believe that for as long as I've been watching the show (so from summer reruns of Season 31 to now) that the show has ever truly used the roster effectively. I thought the whole point of having 70-odd (and shrinking, for whatever reason) games was to keep the audience guessing and stop them getting bored. Before they retired Joker, Poker Game and Buy or Sell, they only played them a handful of times each year. I'm not counting Drew's first season when I say this, as some games got an earlier start than others, but I don't see why any of the pricing games (outside of GR and TP, for budget reasons) couldn't be played at least 10 times in a 36-week season. Games that I know you guys like. Bonus Game. Check-Out. Credit Card. Danger Price. Take Two. Games that have been played a lot more in the past. The fact that they aren't says to me (repeat, to me) that somebody is or was OK just sticking in a shorter, less interesting game to save a little time because "What's the difference?". Hell, they don't even bother trying to fit in a small prize game anymore.

BTW, Mark is exactly right when he says that cherry-picking a few line-ups to fit your argument doesn't mean much. And how many of those "weird" line-ups happened on a Friday, when you guys play Prediction Game? If that's the source of the weirdness, then that's pretty bad. That would mean he could only be creative when playing Mindreaders with his buddies.

Neither of you really addressed the whole "first half or second half" comment I made.

P.S. Where the hell has Barker's Bargain Bar gone this season?

[TheLastResort]

[quote name=\'TroubadourNando\' post=\'202024\' date=\'Nov 19 2008, 09:03 PM\']For example, It's In The Bag. Roger rarely if ever scheduled it first...Roger understood that the first game sets the mood for the show, and that It's In The Bag is too unreliable to lean on for that.[/quote]

Then why was Golden Road always scheduled first even though the top prize was rarely won??

[wheelloon]

[quote name=\'TroubadourNando\' post=\'202030\' date=\'Nov 19 2008, 08:53 PM\']

IMHO, people should stop crying about Drew, he's had JUST A LITTLE OVER ONE YEAR to do things. Alex's improvement on J! is significant over his first 2 years, same for Sajak, same for Viera.

Vieira can be disputed (I'm not the only one who hates her) and both Sajak and Trebek took over much simpler formats.
[/quote]
I didn't like her at first either, she did not do what I thought was the greatest of jobs her first couple of years. AGAIN, it takes time for a host to get their footing (and I do believe too many shows get canned early before such can happen). I believe now, after she's done it awhile, she does rather well and has come along greatly. The viewers also tend to agree, as the ratings for the show are still good. A good enough format will hold viewers by itself, if it's good enough. TPIR is a good format (I'm sure you'd agree), so unless they got somebody of the likes of Patrick Wayne or Jimmy Kimmel, it should be able to ride most waves.

That said, a host putting in a barely acceptable first year performance then imploding on himself in his second year would be considered unacceptable in any other case.

Has this happened to Drew? I don't think so in the least. What initial case then could you be referencing?

How long do you think Bert Parks would have lasted trying to keep his head above water with the complex demands of Hollywood Squares?

Complex? You're telling me you think HS is harder to do than Jeopardy? I'd like to see most other hosts try to read 60 questions rapid fire like Trebek does in a half hour and not stumble over themselves umpteen times. Need I also remind that Trebek was also the producer for the current Jeopardy run those first few years too. If you also think that a lot of today's game show hosts don't have at least some sort of say *especially the old-timers* behind the scenes, especially at the "classic games" you're also misinformed. Being a good game show host has both on-screen and off-screen attributes...

What about Jon Bauman for that matter? Or Ross Shafer? None of them got "two to three years" to prove what they had.

Maybe it was because Bauman's format had issues of its own, people were also still worn out on MG *note Burger was a GREAT host in 98, but that flopped royally too*, and that both of your examples involve MG, which, as many know, has become so engrained with Rayburn that criticism for it NOT being Rayburn will surface *gee, that sounds familiar*. I thought Shafer was a great host though too.

I have other examples to contest too: Ray Combs *even following a host so iconic as Dawson* is fondly remembered, and looking at episodes from the 90's compared to the 80's, his style changed notably for the better, IMHO. Jack Barry was rough that first season or two of TJW, even the first bit of the syndie run too, and we saw what happened there down the road some years.

When the format is tested tried and true, as Price is, a new host will have a little more time to get settled than with a brand new format. No matter who would've been chosen, Barkerless TPIR would still be on today for its 2nd season, ratings be anyone guess, it's future also anyone's guess, but there can be no doubt that it's current state is a lot better than what most imagined it could be, and what it really could've been. If you can't thank Drew, then all that's left is the format. BUT, that would then mean, thus, the whole host debacle wouldn't be as important as so many are making it out to be then, and I don't think many would agree with that...

[quote name=\'CarShark\']Truthfully, I don't believe that for as long as I've been watching the show that the show has ever truly used the roster effectively. I thought the whole point of having 70-odd (and shrinking, for whatever reason) games was to keep the audience guessing and stop them getting bored. Before they retired Joker, Poker Game and Buy or Sell, they only played them a handful of times each year. I'm not counting Drew's first season when I say this, as some games got an earlier start than others, but I don't see why any of the pricing games (outside of GR and TP, for budget reasons) couldn't be played at least 10 times in a 36-week season. Games that I know you guys like. Bonus Game. Check-Out. Credit Card. Danger Price. Take Two. Games that have been played a lot more in the past. The fact that they aren't says to me (repeat, to me) that somebody is or was OK just sticking in a shorter, less interesting game to save a little time because "What's the difference?". Hell, they don't even bother trying to fit in a small prize game anymore.[/quote]

Sounds familiar. It all has said the same thing to me too. 100% agree. Remember that's also supposedly due to viewer demand too...

[TroubadourNando]

BS. If that was really the case, then why play Golden Road or Triple Play or 3 Strikes first?  

I can't vouch for Triple Play, but I understand Golden Road had some setup and staging issues that led them to determine it was easier to just play it first all the time.

You probably won't have to worry about 3 Strikes at this pace.

P.S. Where the hell has Barker's Bargain Bar gone this season?

It got married to 3 Strikes and went on a long vacation.

Has this happened to Drew? I don't think so in the least. What initial case then could you be referencing?

Agree to disagree. I think it has.

Complex? You're telling me you think HS is harder to do than Jeopardy?

Actually, yes. The host of Squares has to contend with a literal cavalcade of personalities that will easily overpower everything around them. Peter Marshall showed how to control that...

Maybe it was because Bauman's format had issues of its own

...but Bauman just couldn't cope with handling Rayburn and eight others at once. He could have had Marshall's format gift wrapped for him and still not have been able to do it. Hell, John Davidson DID have Marshall's format (more or less) but turned in a poor showing belying his three years.

and that both of your examples involve MG, which, as many know, has become so engrained with Rayburn that criticism for it NOT being Rayburn will surface *gee, that sounds familiar*. I thought Shafer was a great host though too.

Bauman was being used purely for the Squares part of his show. And year, I did like Shafer. What I was trying to say was that he was a good host with a few issues who wasn't given the time people think Drew deserves.

That said, I think the idea of MG/HS was one of the most ingenious ones in the genre, if it was only executed better.

[Steve Gavazzi]

[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'202039\' date=\'Nov 19 2008, 09:36 PM\'][quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'202036\' date=\'Nov 19 2008, 09:21 PM\'][quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'202032\' date=\'Nov 19 2008, 08:55 PM\']Not that I'm taking any particular side here...but I should note that Lucky Seven was played first (and only first) for a very long time.  That said, the new rule on cash/car games first only is about the same, IMO.[/quote]Please show me where the rule about Lucky $even stated, "No other pricing game can be played first."[/quote]That's not what I said. I'm refering to this, directly from the G-R FAQ:

Starting on March 18, 1999, excluding primetime episodes, Lucky $even was only played as the first game; this was done to accomodate the stage crew, as the game's car takes up a great deal of space backstage.

[/quote]
Yes, I'm aware of that.  I just don't see how it has any similarity to never starting with a quickie.

[DrJWJustice]

[quote name=\'TroubadourNando\' post=\'202030\' date=\'Nov 19 2008, 08:53 PM\'] Parks never made it past his pilot, Bauman was off in nine weeks, and Shafer fell in a year.
[/quote]

A minor, but important point:  ABC put MG '90 in a horrid time slot (lunch hour), and it probably wouldn't have made it if Gene Rayburn himself had come back to host.

OK, all this being said, Drew Carey is no Bob Barker, but looking back at our posts over the last few years, Bob Barker wasn't himself, either, in his last years, at least according to the stuff we put up.  Excuse me for being negative, but we really do enjoy eating our own on here.  Drew seems a lot more comfortable in this gig, at least to me, now that he's a year into it.  He's injecting a lot more of his kind of humor into the show, including a lot of the self-depreciating humor that he's good at doing.  It's a good thing that he does do it, too, IMHO, because we've held him to expectations that were really beyond the reach of anyone.  That's how I see it, at least, reading over these posts.  

The show's changed a great deal over the years, including major changes throughout Barker's tenure.  It's survived those.  But, the earlier posts are correct -- people's daytime viewing habits have seriously changed, and we may be in for a complete re-do of the daytime schedule, where nothing at all survives the axe.  If TPiR ends in the next year or so -- and it will eventually end at some future point, since everything does -- it'll be the end of an era, and I'll be sad to see it end, but we'll be starting a new one.  I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

[ClockGameJohn]

[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'202043\' date=\'Nov 19 2008, 10:33 PM\']The fact that they aren't says to me (repeat, to me) that somebody is or was OK just sticking in a shorter, less interesting game to save a little time because "What's the difference?". Hell, they don't even bother trying to fit in a small prize game anymore.[/quote]

That is the difference.  CBS continues to cut time from the show forcing shorter games to be played.  I would love Credit Card, Check Out, et al to be played more often too -- but the fact is that by doing so, you've blown 5.5 minutes out of 27 available minutes to form a lineup.

Lineups started getting more "boring" thanks to less time for the show, something out of the Producer's control.

[Jeremy Nelson]

Has this happened to Drew? I don't think so in the least. What initial case then could you be referencing?

Agree to disagree. I think it has.

He's had 2-300 shows to fall into a good rhythm, and it doesn't seem to be working. He is still as unpredictable as when he started. One day, he's flying high, and the next day he's deflated.

What I was trying to say was that he was a good host with a few issues who wasn't given the time people think Drew deserves.

I think Fremantle is seeing where picking from the Live! pool may have been easier. Their better hosts are comfortable, already know the game very well, and of course, have a lot of practice under their belts. Drew didn't have any of these things when he first started out, and that was the problem. I think there would have been a much smoother transition for viewers if they had seen someone who was just as comfortable and knowledgeable as the last host.

Complex? You're telling me you think HS is harder to do than Jeopardy?

Actually, yes. The host of Squares has to contend with a literal cavalcade of personalities that will easily overpower everything around them.

Good hosts for either shows are like comparing apples to oranges. We're dealing with shows that are polar opposites, so there's almost no way of comparing them in any aspect.

[Joe Mello]

[quote name=\'rollercoaster87\' post=\'202061\' date=\'Nov 20 2008, 01:14 AM\']I think Fremantle is seeing where picking from the Live! pool may have been easier. Their better hosts are comfortable, already know the game very well, and of course, have a lot of practice under their belts.[/quote]
Having seen a version of Live hosted by J.D. Roberto, I would've disputed you on that until I saw the phrase "better hosts"

/Truth be told, he was adequate

[wheelloon]

[quote name=\'TroubadourNando\' post=\'202046\' date=\'Nov 19 2008, 11:00 PM\']

Has this happened to Drew? I don't think so in the least. What initial case then could you be referencing?

Agree to disagree. I think it has. [/quote]
We shall. I don't think he's perfect, but I DO think he's doing fine, and has injected some new personality into the show.

Complex? You're telling me you think HS is harder to do than Jeopardy?

Actually, yes. The host of Squares has to contend with a literal cavalcade of personalities that will easily overpower everything around them. Peter Marshall showed how to control that...

Again, we'll agree to disagree. I personally think dealing with the content on Jeopardy is signifiantly harder than being the sort of people person an HS host has to be.

Maybe it was because Bauman's format had issues of its own

...but Bauman just couldn't cope with handling Rayburn and eight others at once. He could have had Marshall's format gift wrapped for him and still not have been able to do it. Hell, John Davidson DID have Marshall's format (more or less) but turned in a poor showing belying his three years.

Handling Rayburn? I don't believe Bauman had to "handle" any of them. Those calibur of stars were also not so much to sneeze at for that run either. They mostly didn't have much of a reason to have an ego, if you've seen enough of their episodes. Rayburn was not really known for having that oversized ego like Dawson and Barker are known for now either. Sure, he had one, and he also had legit problems with Bauman many of us have, but there were SO MANY difficulties with MGHSH that I personally think it was doomed from the start.

Time slots, as another mentioned, were also an issue with these shows. I also don't think Davidson was particularly bad with HS *doing the whole people person thing*, but something like Pyramid was beyond him. As rollercoaster also said, comparing a show like HS to one like TPIR is a bit like apples and oranges. They both involve different skills, different audiences to a degree, and require a somewhat different hosting style. TPIR also hasn't really been tinkered with like HS was in MGHSH, or MG was in 90, which could turn off the "change resisters." The 4 games and/or no IUFB rumors that have been going around haven't come true, and only if such happens will I say that TPIR has undergone a major format change.

Using a format that I'm more associated with as an example, WOF has gone through NUMEROUS tinkerings like people say TPIR has over the past couple of years. I'd think WOF actually moreso with tossups, gimmick rounds, bonus wheel, and million dollars, which might be comparable with having new pricing games on TPIR, but WOF's format, as a whole, hasn't really changed since shopping was axed 20 years ago. TPIR's hasn't either, and is not a legitimate reason why people aren't watching the show as regularly as once before.

and that both of your examples involve MG, which, as many know, has become so engrained with Rayburn that criticism for it NOT being Rayburn will surface *gee, that sounds familiar*. I thought Shafer was a great host though too.

Bauman was being used purely for the Squares part of his show. And year, I did like Shafer. What I was trying to say was that he was a good host with a few issues who wasn't given the time people think Drew deserves.

I will then say, again, that TPIR is a much more established format, and has been in the SAME TIME, SAME PLACE, for many years. MGHSH was, even though the formats were classic, a new show in a new time, and lacked the CONSISTENT exposure TPIR has had.

I will then conclude by asking this then. If Drew, for whatever reason one could argue, doesn't deserve an extended time to get his footing at a 35 year long format, what other options are there? A new host? Switching so soon would only cause certain dissention, losing more viewers. Then, really, what's left but cancellation?