CBS Pulls "MDP"

[joker316]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'205746\' date=\'Jan 8 2009, 12:03 AM\']
[quote name=\'Sodboy13\' post=\'205743\' date=\'Jan 7 2009, 08:43 PM\']And the fact is, someone must have seen pacing problems 30 years ago, otherwise we wouldn't have seen a switch to words with a 4-clue maximum, and a 10-in-60 bonus round.[/quote]
No, I understand that. But one of the main tenets of the game was that both people are playing the same word, and sometimes you have to worry about giving a clue that will help your opponent if your partner doesn't get it. They pulled out that head-to-head. And it doesn't help that in EVERY SINGLE EPISODE of this current run, we've said "Hey, Celeb X wasn't bad, but oy, Celeb Y was TERRIBLE." There is no excuse for that happening ONCE, much less every episode.

I can't help but wonder if the celebrity list was controlled more by an external source than by the production itself.
[/quote]

Agreed. Maybe if they played "x" number of words, or until a "times up" buzzer sounded, the elimination round would be better. As for the bonus round, unless the episodes straddled, the "come back and see if she wins a MILLION DOLLARS next time " factor is off the table. I'm looking  at the clock at home and as it gets closer to the end of the show, you can predict how it's going to go (i.e. "he's going to stop at $50K, etc.)

IIRC when the show was in its 60's heyday, stars actually requested to be on the show. Maybe it was love of the game, something different to plug a new movie, or even an ego trip. Today's "stars' can't be bothered to at least try to look good playing the game.

[Don Howard]

[quote name=\'joker316\' post=\'205759\' date=\'Jan 8 2009, 08:33 AM\']
I'm looking at the clock at home and as it gets closer to the end of the show, you can predict how it's going to go (i.e. "he's going to stop at $50K, etc.)
[/quote]
I solved this problem after Episode One by no longer looking at the clock while viewing the telecast.

[Offshored2007]

[quote name=\'Don Howard\' post=\'205763\' date=\'Jan 8 2009, 10:27 AM\']
[quote name=\'joker316\' post=\'205759\' date=\'Jan 8 2009, 08:33 AM\']
I'm looking at the clock at home and as it gets closer to the end of the show, you can predict how it's going to go (i.e. "he's going to stop at $50K, etc.)
[/quote]
I solved this problem after Episode One by no longer looking at the clock while viewing the telecast.
[/quote]
Same here.  This show deserved a better fate, even though I have been a bit critical of it in other topics.  Meanwhile trash like "Game Show in my Head" gets on the air (though the ratings were very low).  Maybe the remaining episodes will get dumped to Saturday when GSH gets canned.  Just yesterday, Prof was pushing for CBS to commit to a longer run of episodes.  

Skewing Older - the death knell.

[Neumms]

If 18-40 year olds are the issue, maybe the host is part of the problem. Regis Philbin isn't exactly young and vibrant, and he doesn't come off as well on Password as he did on Millionaire, where he could sit and chat.

I liked the bonus round, save for the monetary risks. It's good TV to see how far they can go, up against progressively more challenging words. The risks just get in the way, if only the producers understood that.

I'd much prefer "Classic Password" for the front game. While the "Pyramid" version moves faster, the robotic back-and-forth of it makes it no less dull. If they could play a fast traditional game (maybe they have to add a rung to the money ladder to make up the time) this would also open up space for humor. As bad as Shatner and the Sopranos guy were, you at least got some byplay that lifted the show.

[BillCullen1]

[quote name=\'Craig Karlberg\' post=\'205754\' date=\'Jan 8 2009, 04:40 AM\']
2.  The celebrity pool left a lot to be desired this time around.  Shatner was THE WORST of the bunch so far.  [/quote]

I guess you missed the show this past Sunday with Serena Williams. She made Shatner look like Einstein.

I do hope we get to see the other two shows of MDP eventually, so Sodboy can get his money. A lot of the celebs seem to be associated with CBS shows - Craig Ferguson, Julie Chen, Phil Keogan.  I wonder if Jeff Probst is on one of the two shows not aired yet.

And there's a rumor that Julie Chen has slept with CBS prez Les Moonves - oh my (wink)!!

[SRIV94]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'205746\' date=\'Jan 7 2009, 11:03 PM\']
No, I understand that. But one of the main tenets of the game was that both people are playing the same word, and sometimes you have to worry about giving a clue that will help your opponent if your partner doesn't get it. They pulled out that head-to-head. And it doesn't help that in EVERY SINGLE EPISODE of this current run, we've said "Hey, Celeb X wasn't bad, but oy, Celeb Y was TERRIBLE." There is no excuse for that happening ONCE, much less every episode.
[/quote]
I don't disagree, but there were occasions when even on P+ you had weeks where one celeb did all the winning.  I'm thinking back to the Joanna Gleason/Robert Pine week in 1979--Pine played the first Alphabetics that week by virtue of a coin toss, and proceeded to get skunked the rest of the week.

Pine only returned to P+ once after that (as part of a celebrity week playing for charity in 1981).  Whether he was a no-book because of his performance that week, or if he threw a hissy at some point, I don't know--or perhaps Pine was invited to return but declined (perhaps our esteemed moderator can shed some light).

[LetsGoMets2003]

Aw man, this is a shame. I'm in that coveted 18-24 demo too. Oh well.

[BrandonFG]

I'm disappointed by the news, esp. considering the show got decent overall ratings. Hopefully CBS wises up.

I'm in favor of it going to half-hour syndication, maybe under the title of "Big Money Password". Instead of the bonus format currently used, maybe just do two parts. In part one, you get $1,000 for every correct response, up to seven. All seven is worth $10,000.

Then the final part is a "double or nothing", where you can risk your dough, and must get 5-for-5. Or hell, just bring back Alphabetics! Also, do something about the "more correct answers is your bonus round partner" rule.
 
/Yes, I know $20,000 is not "Big Money" for a 2009 game show
//Work with me here

[chad1m]

[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'205799\' date=\'Jan 8 2009, 03:52 PM\']"Big Money Password"[/quote]What's wrong with just going back to "Password"? I mean, Spain does it and they don't even speak our language!

[Don Howard]

[quote name=\'chad1m\' post=\'205803\' date=\'Jan 8 2009, 04:16 PM\']
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'205799\' date=\'Jan 8 2009, 03:52 PM\']"Big Money Password"[/quote]What's wrong with just going back to "Password"?
[/quote]
Not a doggone thing.

[BrandonFG]

[quote name=\'chad1m\' post=\'205803\' date=\'Jan 8 2009, 04:16 PM\']
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'205799\' date=\'Jan 8 2009, 03:52 PM\']"Big Money Password"[/quote]What's wrong with just going back to "Password"? I mean, Spain does it and they don't even speak our language!
[/quote]
None whatsoever. I just ran out of modifiers and/or adjectives to put in the title, i.e. "Plus" or "Super". ;-) Password works just fine.

[PYLdude]

I'm in with those that think this could work as a half hour syndie show...however, I'd have liked to see a format where they combine the Plus/Super front game with the Big Money Lightning Round.

But that's just my opinion.

[Ian Wallis]

I'm in with those that think this could work as a half hour syndie show...however, I'd have liked to see a format where they combine the Plus/Super front game with the Big Money Lightning Round.

I'll go along with that.  Although I like the show, it would be more interesting to see something other than "lightning rounds".

[Jimmy Owen]

I'd suggest the qualifying game from Password '75 followed by a lightning round/Alphabetics with the celeb determined by a coin toss.

[calliaume]

[quote name=\'narzo\' post=\'205745\' date=\'Jan 8 2009, 12:58 AM\']
I love the show, like many of you, but a look at the demo's does show why CBS is doing this.  

I just read in one of the business columns that the only demo with disposable income is the 18-24s.  The concern among the advertisers is the older demos (that now starts with the 25+'s) all have mortgages and are therefore not spending.  The ad agencies and the advertisers are not putting money into shows where their spot will be seen by people who might like the product but have no disposable income to spend on it.  Honestly as a former "ad man" I can see the it being a tough sell.  It's all the economy folks.

If this were 5 years, hell even 2 years earlier the concern would have been nominal.  Today if you aren't going to hit the 18-24's, good luck to you.
[/quote]

This is the sort of absolute bullshit that makes me crazy.  First of all, most 25-year-olds don't own houses -- and if they do, they're now trying to sell them because they can't afford the payments anymore.  (I know a couple who are both in the mortgage business who bought a five-bedroom house two and a half years ago that now need to sell.)  This is especially true in urban/suburban areas.  I know we're not a true cross section of America here, but how many of us own and how many of us rent?  (We bought our house -- our first house -- when I was 42, boys and girls.)  Also, many adults just out of college aren't spending because they have student loans to pay off (and credit card debt -- already! -- accrued during college).

Secondly, it's primarily the 55s and above who do have the disposable income -- they've paid off the houses, they're close to retirement if they're not there already, and they've put away the money they needed to (unlike the tail end of the baby boomers, Gen X, and Gen Y, who are spending more than they make -- the overall savings rate in 2007 was -1 percent).

Okay.  I don't think the game's format was great, the segments I saw had some lousy celebrities (of course, so did the older versions of Password and Pyramid -- what Robert Pine was to Password Plus, Valerie Bertinelli was to The $20,000 Pyramid), and certainly, if they were looking for 22-year-old viewers, then a 77-year-old wasn't the best choice to host.  At least these issues can be fixed.  Chasing after an audience based on incorrect assumptions -- that's a lot harder.