CBS Makes a 'Deal' to Replace 'Guiding Light'

[chris319]

Wayne Brady needs to get that God damn microphone out of his mouth. He looks like one of the Popsicle Twins.

[Don Howard]

[quote name=\'dad1153\' post=\'227697\' date=\'Oct 5 2009, 11:02 AM\']Announcer/sidekick was OK......as was the model and the set.[/quote]
Her dress could have been a little shorter. Hopefully this will occur on future shows.

[narzo]

[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'227719\' date=\'Oct 5 2009, 11:33 AM\']Wayne Brady needs to get that God damn microphone out of his mouth. He looks like one of the Popsicle Twins.[/quote]

Was having flashback to the way Ray Combs did the same thing.  So annoying.

[dad1153]

[quote name=\'Don Howard\' post=\'227755\' date=\'Oct 5 2009, 04:06 PM\'][quote name=\'dad1153\' post=\'227697\' date=\'Oct 5 2009, 11:02 AM\']Announcer/sidekick was OK......as was the model and the set.[/quote]Her dress could have been a little shorter. Hopefully this will occur on future shows.[/quote]That'll be a tell-tale sign of how the show's ratings are doing: the shorter the model's skirt the worse the Nielsen numbers. :-P

[opimus]

Wanye is ok. I think Harry Anderson would be a better fit as host.

[J.R.]

[quote name=\'opimus\' post=\'227843\' date=\'Oct 6 2009, 09:41 AM\']Wanye is ok. I think Harry Anderson would be a better fit as host.[/quote]
He might approve.

[deknaj]

I think they need to go back to the original Big Deal rules and not just have one trader face off against the big doors....I used to love those moments where the second trader had to wait for Monty to tell them it was either their door being shown first or the other and that they had won the Big Deal....even if they are going to stick with the one trader for the Big Deal format, at least build up the suspense by showing the door that wasnt the big deal first and then saving the surprise for the end on whether the trader took the Big Deal or not.

[JMFabiano]

[quote name=\'deknaj\' post=\'227931\' date=\'Oct 7 2009, 12:28 AM\']I think they need to go back to the original Big Deal rules and not just have one trader face off against the big doors....I used to love those moments where the second trader had to wait for Monty to tell them it was either their door being shown first or the other and that they had won the Big Deal....even if they are going to stick with the one trader for the Big Deal format, at least build up the suspense by showing the door that wasnt the big deal first and then saving the surprise for the end on whether the trader took the Big Deal or not.[/quote]

Yeah, at first I didn't think it was a big deal (no pun intended), but the above is true.  

If it is because of a new show not having a big budget (and thus it wouldn't be wise to give away two big prize packages per show...heck, the actual BD ISN'T a package, as we've observed), then hopefully that'll be fixed if LMAD gets popular enough to warrant receiving extra money.  If, you know, that IS the case and if it is possible (economy and all....)  

It can't be time constraints because at the end of the day they still end up describing three doors (but don't have to be detailed on the passed-up ones...so maybe I'm wrong here...)

Now, if my other theory is correct, well, we've encountered something that will hurt this version of LMAD.  Namely, the need to separate this show as much as possible from TPIR.  We've already seen that it's quite possible that they can't use pricing game-like, um, games.  And going back on topic here, I was wondering if some higher-up feared that a 2-player Big Deal could be seen as being too much like the Showcase.  

Hopefully this and the other rough edges will be addressed and improve with time.  (And hopefully not current Family Feud style, where the "most necessary" changes seemed to come every 3 years)  A lot rides on this show doing well, of course.  

Hey, I was wondering...does Wayne have a Twitter account or some such thing?  I ask because it's been a welcome feature when it comes to Drew and TPIR and offering feedback (rather than just "yelling at telephone poles").  Not that it'll solve everything, but it's good to feel that you're getting your opinion across to the proper place.

[TimK2003]

[quote name=\'JMFabiano\' post=\'227947\' date=\'Oct 7 2009, 05:56 AM\']Now, if my other theory is correct, well, we've encountered something that will hurt this version of LMAD.  Namely, the need to separate this show as much as possible from TPIR.  We've already seen that it's quite possible that they can't use pricing game-like, um, games.  And going back on topic here, I was wondering if some higher-up feared that a 2-player Big Deal could be seen as being too much like the Showcase.[/quote]

I disagree with the notion that the Big Deal is anything like the Showcase.  There is always a possibility that NOBODY will win anything in either showcase via a Double Overbid -- EVERYBODY playing in the Big Deal is guaranteed to win something, even if it is less in value than what they gave up for.  

And as far as pricing games, TPIR has used similar concepts first used on LMAD.  For example, Monty Hall had been playing a version of "put 4 or 5 prizes in order of least-to-most expensive" for years before TPIR retooled it as "It's In The Bag".   Yeah, IITB can be argued as a variation on Hole in One (Or Two), but Monty still did the original Low-To-High pricing game first.  There can be enough little tweaks to make any pricing game on LMAD or TPIR similar in concept, but not 100% a carbon copy.  Plus in the LMAD pricing games, the audience could not shout out answers/prices.  The only help the audience could give is giving advice on take this or that offer.

I am still on the theory that the biggest quirk of LMAD is that it is a 45-minute show that would be too rushed for a 30-minute show, yet at it's hour timeslot, the show's pace still drags in spots.

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'TimK2003\' post=\'227960\' date=\'Oct 7 2009, 10:28 AM\']I disagree with the notion that the Big Deal is anything like the Showcase.[/quote]
Boy, I just don't get that logic at all.  Sure there are differences, but there are also plenty of superficial similarities.  Compared to the final acts of Wheel of Fortune, or Jeopardy, or Family Feud, you're looking at two different shows with two very similar final acts.  Both hours would come down to two top winners facing off to win a big prize package on the only two game shows you've got.

I have no idea whether that's the reason they decided to have the new Big Deal be a solo act, but there's no question that the original Big Deal and the Showcase are at least somewhat alike.

[JMFabiano]

[quote name=\'TimK2003\' post=\'227960\' date=\'Oct 7 2009, 10:28 AM\'][quote name=\'JMFabiano\' post=\'227947\' date=\'Oct 7 2009, 05:56 AM\']Now, if my other theory is correct, well, we've encountered something that will hurt this version of LMAD.  Namely, the need to separate this show as much as possible from TPIR.  We've already seen that it's quite possible that they can't use pricing game-like, um, games.  And going back on topic here, I was wondering if some higher-up feared that a 2-player Big Deal could be seen as being too much like the Showcase.[/quote]

I disagree with the notion that the Big Deal is anything like the Showcase.  There is always a possibility that NOBODY will win anything in either showcase via a Double Overbid -- EVERYBODY playing in the Big Deal is guaranteed to win something, even if it is less in value than what they gave up for.  

And as far as pricing games, TPIR has used similar concepts first used on LMAD.  For example, Monty Hall had been playing a version of "put 4 or 5 prizes in order of least-to-most expensive" for years before TPIR retooled it as "It's In The Bag".   Yeah, IITB can be argued as a variation on Hole in One (Or Two), but Monty still did the original Low-To-High pricing game first.  There can be enough little tweaks to make any pricing game on LMAD or TPIR similar in concept, but not 100% a carbon copy.  Plus in the LMAD pricing games, the audience could not shout out answers/prices.  The only help the audience could give is giving advice on take this or that offer.

I am still on the theory that the biggest quirk of LMAD is that it is a 45-minute show that would be too rushed for a 30-minute show, yet at it's hour timeslot, the show's pace still drags in spots.
[/quote]

We know that, but do over-cautious TV execs know it?  

As for your last point, maybe it's time to "Whew!" the timeslot (which would necessitate bringing back CBS Mid-Morning News perhaps?  "Stay tuned for The Price Is Right, following the news...")

[CarShark]

[quote name=\'TimK2003\' post=\'227960\' date=\'Oct 7 2009, 10:28 AM\']For example, Monty Hall had been playing a version of "put 4 or 5 prizes in order of least-to-most expensive" for years before TPIR retooled it as "It's In The Bag".   Yeah, IITB can be argued as a variation on Hole in One (Or Two), but Monty still did the original Low-To-High pricing game first.[/quote]But that's not It's In The Bag, at all. IITB is matching products to revealed prices. If anything, it's probably closer to Phone Home Game.

[NickintheATL]

[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'227967\' date=\'Oct 7 2009, 12:05 PM\']If anything, it's probably closer to Phone Home Game.[/quote]

Nope.  That game was home player gives price, on-stage contestant matches product with the price.  No ranking of products there.

[chris319]

I disagree with the notion that the Big Deal is anything like the Showcase. There is always a possibility that NOBODY will win anything in either showcase via a Double Overbid -- EVERYBODY playing in the Big Deal is guaranteed to win something, even if it is less in value than what they gave up for.

Well the first basic difference is that on TPIR, barring a double overbid, one player wins their showcase and the other loses. Never do both players win. If similarity between the two shows is that big a concern they should have gone with Pyramid.

[CarShark]

[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'227967\' date=\'Oct 7 2009, 12:05 PM\']But that's not It's In The Bag, at all. IITB is matching products to revealed prices. If anything, it's probably closer to Phone Home Game.[/quote]

[quote name=\'NicholasM79\' post=\'227969\' date=\'Oct 7 2009, 12:18 PM\']Nope.  That game was home player gives price, on-stage contestant matches product with the price.  No ranking of products there.[/quote]That's what I said. It's In The Bag is a matching game. There is no ranking.

Just to be clear, THIS is It's In The Bag

THIS is Hole In One.

EDIT-Wait, I see what happened here. This is what I said:

[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'227967\' date=\'Oct 7 2009, 12:05 PM\']But [the ranking game]'s not It's In The Bag, at all. [It's In The Bag] is matching products to revealed prices. If anything, [It's In The Bag]'s probably closer to Phone Home Game.[/quote]

This is what you thought I said:

[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'227967\' date=\'Oct 7 2009, 12:05 PM\']But [the ranking game]'s not It's In The Bag, at all. [It's In The Bag] is matching products to revealed prices. If anything, [the ranking game]'s probably closer to Phone Home Game.[/quote]

That'll teach me to use third-person pronouns when dealing with more than one subject.