I've read my posts again. I've read your posts again. I'm not
intentionally trying to be obtuse or anything, but it appears that I'm confused as to what you mean. All I'm saying at the end of the day is that:
1) The show would be better with four IUFBs and Pricing Games and one Showdown. (more interaction, better games, feeling less rushed)
2) I haven't decided whether I think one or two Showcases with one or two contestants would be best, but I'm leaning currently towards one and one, because one Showcase is usually not very desirable. I would like the secret bid idea proposed earlier if two contestants with one Showcase was used.
3) I don't think Contestants' Row is as important as you think it is. I think it's just a place where people make their $420s and $69s and $1337s or one dollar over someone else. I think it's a bit stale, in general.
4) IMO, the shorter games on the show are currently used to make sure that six games are played each day. (i.e. if they want to play Plinko and Pocket Change, they're going to need Double Prices and Most Expensive, also)
4a) IF TPIR went to 4 IUFBs and 4 Games they wouldn't need the quicker games as much, if at all.
4b) Even though the quick games may be "the truest tests of pricing skill", as you said, I don't think that the average viewer really gets excited by them. If The Powers That Be think along the same lines, they might think that since they don't need to play short games anymore to fill a six-game line-up, they no longer have an upside, so they'll stop playing them. I also think that if they were to stop playing Double Prices and Most Expensive and all the rest, the average viewer would not react negatively to the change.
5) When I made the "Just because something existed 30 years ago doesn't mean it should still exist now.", I
specifically meant that if the show doesn't need to play quick games to stay on schedule, I don't see the harm in not playing them anymore. It may have been considered necessary back in the 70s, and if it isn't now, then age shouldn't be a determining factor in whether they continue to play the game. That's all I meant.
This is where the confusion stems from, I believe, because I then (incorrectly) thought that you were saying that the age of a game
should determine whether they keep it or not. I do dislike most of the quickies, but I do because they aren't interesting,
not because they are old.
5a) Veering slightly off-course, when you made that reference to Logan's Run, I thought you were saying that "CarShark believes that old=bad in all cases all the time", which seemed extreme to me. I don't believe that at all, but I do believe that if you keep too many things the same for too long a time, it can make things feel a bit stale. I don't necessarily like the way Wheel of Fortune has progressed over the years gameplay-wise, but I do like the way they've modernized the set. Video walls, video scoreboards, digital puzzleboard. But the secret is that they did it one piece at a time, so more "conservative" fans didn't get overwhelmed. When urbanpreppie frequently posted here, he mentioned this often, as well. I don't see why TPIR doing the same would hurt it the way more "conservative" fans of the show think it would. In fact, I think it would
better attract younger, more casual fans than the current collection of 20-odd-year-old electromechanical technology. During the time that the latest batch of Million Dollar Spectaculars were airing, TheKid over at GSN Boards noted that some of the older games, like Clock Game and Bonus Game didn't look fresh in high-definition. To me, that reflects badly on the show in a way the average viewer actually
would notice.
I really hoped this cleared things up, Travis. I don't really understand how our discussion got to the point it has, because it certainly seems that we agree on more than we originally thought.
