Mike Richards leaving TPIR?

[Dbacksfan12]

I think we'd all like to see Roger return <SNIP>

Why it is so hard for some to give up the ghost?

I think part of the problem is people who are unable to differentiate between changes they'd like to see vs. Roger returning.

I personally think the good majority of theme shows are stupid. That can change without Roger being re-hired; the chance of that happening is about as good as Kliest and co. being re-admitted to this board.

[JasonA1]

Call me a big kid, but I can enjoy theme shows on a superficial level. The festive set changes to mark Christmas were always welcome with me, so Summer Beach Party or whatever aesthetic theme they want to do is six-of-one for me.

But I'm not sure what you get out of having contestant teams. There's not enough time to allow their personalities to shine if they're say, married couples, and I don't think watching two people discuss what numbers they want to pick in Money Game is worth it either. But I honestly haven't watched enough of those type of theme shows to have a definitive opinion: what does the group think? For those that have watched them, do they get some extra mileage out of having more than one person play at each podium?

-Jason

[Steve Gavazzi]

But I'm not sure what you get out of having contestant teams. There's not enough time to allow their personalities to shine if they're say, married couples, and I don't think watching two people discuss what numbers they want to pick in Money Game is worth it either. But I honestly haven't watched enough of those type of theme shows to have a definitive opinion: what does the group think? For those that have watched them, do they get some extra mileage out of having more than one person play at each podium?

Honestly, there's extra contestants, and that's pretty much it.  It doesn't add much of anything, but it hasn't really hurt, either.

[whewfan]

Chris, it's okay if you disagree, I know there are some on here that may not like what Roger has done with the show, but I wish you would elaborate on WHY you wouldn't want Roger back. (Not that I am saying that's even an option... it would be no more probable than Bob returning to host.)

Nobody said they hate what he did. Would you go back to a job that fired you, regardless of how justified or unjustified it was? Having personally gone through such a situation, I’ll say it’s not fun, and I would have zero desire to return, at least not without a hefty raise.

The folks who constantly gripe on Roger’s page refuse to understand that times have changed. It’s not 1992, and Drew himself said he wanted to get away from the old way of doing things and not be Barker 2.0. The same fans fail to see that the last several years of Bob’s era were dry and monotonous.

You don’t have to like the current era, but you also don’t have to watch. And from what I’ve seen on Roger’s Facebook, it’s a whole lotta people claiming to hate the show now, yet know exactly what happened on this week’s episodes.

I will say this, when I see "new" TPIRs posted from while Johnny Olson was there, I am much more excited than those posted from after Johnny died. For me TPIR was in its prime in the Johnny Olson years. Rod brought a lot to the show, but his on screen involvement would decrease somewhere around season 26, then season 31, he wasn't on camera at all, with one exception of the start of season 32, his last on camera appearance. Despite some behind the scenes drama that happened in the last almost 10 years of the show, I found reason to enjoy it. I think increased time constraints restricted Bob from doing what he did best, and I think that was harder for him to do a quality show. As much as I respected Rod, I did think Rich Fields brought a new energy that Rod just didn't have towards the end. (I'm talking about before he became ill) I consider myself as Bob would describe a "loyal friend and true", but I do find it harder to enjoy the current run of the show. The only time I would watch is for April Fools or Halloween, because I always thought they did those shows right, and are fun.

[whewfan]

But I'm not sure what you get out of having contestant teams. There's not enough time to allow their personalities to shine if they're say, married couples, and I don't think watching two people discuss what numbers they want to pick in Money Game is worth it either. But I honestly haven't watched enough of those type of theme shows to have a definitive opinion: what does the group think? For those that have watched them, do they get some extra mileage out of having more than one person play at each podium?

Honestly, there's extra contestants, and that's pretty much it.  It doesn't add much of anything, but it hasn't really hurt, either.

From the perspective of Stan, I can imagine it would be more difficult to select pairs of contestants, because one person in the pair may not be the most ideal while the other would be a good fit, but he can't split them up! In other words, both players have to fit the mold, or neither get on the show.

[JakeT]

Do you not grasp the irony of, in spite of your glowing words about Roger, that the period that you consider TPiR's prime aka "the Johnny Olson years" was pretty much BEFORE Roger was promoted to producer?

JakeT

[BillCullen1]

I will admit I wasn't a Mike Richards fan. When I first heard most of what he planned for TPIR, I thought he was nuts. But a dozen years later, his track record is pretty good. He brought a couple of things to TPIR that it sorely needed - a shot of adrenaline and an update to the 21st century.

The last few years with Bob, the show was on automatic pilot. Occasionally there was a new game but other than that, meh. But with the arrival of Drew, some changes came to be. The set was updated. Some of the games were updated. When I first saw the new Clock Game, I said "Whoa!" That was proof to me that they can do things right. The theme weeks have become annual events. Modern technology now allows them to show trips on giant screens. They no longer have to make huge signs that take up a lot a space and made the show look dated. The contestant displays show bids in different fonts and on different backgrounds. They hired a couple of male models. While doing all this, they also managed to introduce new games. I like Rat Race and Pay The Rent.

Apparently, all this impressed Sony enough to offer Richards a job. Most of what he did has made TPIR a better show. No, I don't see Roger coming back, no matter how much the LFATs on Facebook stroke his ego. As for Drew, I have mixed feelings about him. He's come a long way from his first couple of seasons, but he's still fumbling the rules to some games. But bottom line, management is happy, so he's not going anywhere. I realize that as a viewer, I can tune in to watch or not.

[Joe Mello]

When I first saw this I thought "YouTube Bloggers?" but I figured if it had any credence, it would've had to almost certainly have been a voluntary departure. A decade-ish of the same job is a really long time, and Richards is still probably young enough (and likely wealthy enough) to do whatever he wanted if he decided to do something else.

As for the product he leaves behind, TBH, after a couple of years of "rebellion" it seems to have settled on what it wants to be, which is just The Way Things Were But Slightly Different. Event weeks are novel, but not disruptive, and everything else I see is pretty bog standard for TPIR, at least as much standard as you can fit into 38 minutes.

[whewfan]

Jake, that may be true, but my reasons for not getting the same enjoyment have nothing to do with Roger.

Johnny Olson was an immense talent on and off camera. Rod Roddy had some great moments on camera too, but then as the show progressed, he was on camera less and less. I saw noticeable changes in Bob's demeanor after the 25th year, he got testier with slower contestants, and that wasn't fun to watch. Yes, he does seem to "phone it in" on some shows, but as I said before, I found reasons to still enjoy watching the show, although maybe I wasn't watching as frequently. Bob also seemed to want to get the show over with on his last show, as I am sure I talked about before. He sharply refused hugs, kisses, handshakes, which seemed to shock some of the audience, although with great reluctance, when a lady pleaded with Bob to kiss him because she was recently a contestant and forgot, Bob slowly came down the steps to the audience and walked to her and let her kiss him.

[chrisholland03]

I honestly don't mind most of the theme shows.  The contestant pairs don't really do much for me.  I probably need my eyes checked, but the biggest change I'd make at this point would be to tone down the set.

[TLEberle]

PA decade-ish of the same job is a really long time, and Richards is still probably young enough (and likely wealthy enough) to do whatever he wanted if he decided to do something else.

I recall that his ride of choice is a Maserati. I think he will be fine in the interim.

[JakeT]

Jake, that may be true, but my reasons for not getting the same enjoyment have nothing to do with Roger.

Then I am somehow missing your point of suggesting that "we'd all like to see Roger return" and your interest in questioning the motives of those who didn't agree with that statement...

JakeT

[whewfan]

Jake, I guess it was my assumption that, while it would be unrealistic for Roger to come back to produce the show, I thought that everyone thought that it would still be nice if he would come back. When Chris replied with a simple "nah", that kind of threw me off. So, obviously, to paraphrase the adage, "I should never assume, because I made an ass of everyone, and me."

There are some that wouldn't want Roger back, and that's okay. Either they're going to promote someone that's already there, then everything would remain pretty much the same, or maybe they'll get someone else, and we might see some changes, or it wouldn't matter who they get, and everything stays the same.

What if someone posted something on here, and I replied with "I disagree" or "WRONG" and nothing more. Wouldn't you want to know why I disagree?

[clemon79]

What if someone posted something on here, and I replied with "I disagree" or "WRONG" and nothing more. Wouldn't you want to know why I disagree?

In your case, honestly? No.

[ChrisLambert!]

I regret even entering the conversation, but I think you need someone who will treat the show with a combo of reverence and fresh eyes. Mike did that, and it eventually worked out; I question whether a new RD era would be as open to trying to keep the show relevant to younger audiences.