[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'224491\' date=\'Aug 30 2009, 08:31 PM\']But it will, because they cannot afford that. They're giving away $25,000 a head. For ten people to move up a level, you need ten more people to go for it and be wrong. There just isn't that kind of time.[/quote]There are, I believe, 75-80 episodes during sweeps out of 195. Maybe I can't make it easier for all the shows, but half sounds feasible. That would give me 155 shows to reclaim the money in the other 40. What I would really like is a run of five or six contestants in a row going deep. That kind of buzz could last the rest of the sweeps period.
And now screwed the players who were unfortunate enough to draw that tape day. Not only didn't they get the easy stack, but they have to fight that much harder to win the big money.
Which, again, I'm ok with. Just as I'm ok with the people who go on TPIR a week after they give away a $90K+ motorhome playing for cheaper prizes and having little shot at winning anything big. It's simply the price you pay for having big wins on the show.
These are not just abstract numbers and shadows of people. You have to work within the boundaries of a budget, and know that there are real people looking to win real money here.
Yes, but I'm also working with the timings of sweeps. It's not that I don't want or care whether someone hits it big outside of sweeps, but if it's not doing anything for my ad rates (which seem more important than ever), then frankly it's not doing as much as it could. If I'm the producer, and I'm not getting maximum benefit from the few big wins I get every year, I don't think I'd be producer much longer.
True. But this tournament wrinkle adds an artificial second carrot, almost a distraction. It's the main reason I didn't like $100,000 Pyramid way of qualifying for the tournament. It wasn't enough for you to go up to the top. You had to speed things up. With a tie between $25K and $50K winners being likely, time now becomes a more important factor, as well.
Really? What would you have done differently? I thought that it was a great way to do it.
Winning once in 35 seconds could be a fluke. Winning multiple times makes that less likely. To tell the truth, I quite liked the way Donnymid did it, with making winning twice in a day the requirement. I'd go for either that or going by most wins in the Winners' Circle during a championship run, with total score money and WC attempts being the tie-breakers.
How is it fair that some players get to play Plinko, and some get to play Double Prices? Or that some people get on a show and the jackpot prize is a foreign holiday while the next group plays for a trip to Florida. Game shows are not an egalitarian exercise, and sometimes you do things that aren't fair just because they look good on TV.
What makes you think that blatantly forcing a million dollar question several days in a row makes for good TV? Assuming they haven't changed the channel after yet another person bombs mid-stack, they have to readjust to the tournament format (with likely lots of explanation from Meredith). If someone answers it wrong, then it's just another loss. If they walk away, it's just another walk away. But if they get it right early on, you can't really celebrate, because they haven't actually
won the money yet. They've won a
chance at the money.
[quote name=\'mcsittel\' post=\'224522\' date=\'Aug 30 2009, 10:52 PM\']Since the clock starts as Meredith reads the answers, contestants can simply talk over her to answer. We were encouraged to do this, but as a viewer I doubt it would be enjoyable to never hear Meredith finish reading the choices-it's akin to someone at home shouting out the answers before you've had the chance to play along.[/quote]...
Speaking of not-good TV...why the hell does the clock still start when Meredith's reading the answers?
Oh, and the way I read things, the entire season will have been taped by November.
And I thought it was only cheapie, fly-by-night operations like Temptation that needed to "get 'em all in the can"
