[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Apr 29 2004, 01:13 PM\'] [quote name=\'DrJWJustice\' date=\'Apr 29 2004, 09:48 AM\'] And if Password were ever to return, I STILL would bump Alphabetics to $20-25k if it were to return on inflation grounds alone, not on "Mo' Money," to make it better. [/quote]
...and you'd STILL be wrong, at least in my eyes, because I'm not convinced yet that a bump from $10K to something higher is necessary for a big prize on a game show. Notice the Osmond Pyramid played with the same prize levels the Clark version twenty years ago. Maybe for a show like Feud where you're dividing the loot five ways, but for one player, I can't think of one who wouldn't be thrilled to win $10K. [/quote]
Hey, Chris, I'd be thrilled with $10k, or even $5k. As it is, I'll have to settle for my income tax return check right now. (I'll bite on this anyways. What the hell -- I could use a brief break from grading.) Let's not forget that Family Feud's current incarnation doubled its prize during its current run, as did Jeopardy. Did the 'mo money' improve the games? I don't think it did. Did it need to happen? Not necessarily. Did it improve ratings? To be honest, I haven't researched it, but I'll bet that it probably didn't. The fact remains that they did it anyways.
Your argument, as I understood it, is that 'mo money' improves the game. Let me be clear -- this suggested increase takes into account one factor and one alone, and that's the fact that a dollar isn't worth today what it was when these shows first aired. By your own definition given above, 'Mo Money Syndrome' doesn't apply. Now that my voice is gone, I don't think more money would improve the gameplay on PW. That's done by adjusting the rules of play themselves. If I were trying to improve Password simply by raising Alphabetics' post, your 'Mo Money Syndrome' would most certainly apply. Did upping Super Millionaire's pot to $10 million improve the game? No, not on its own. All that it did do was to increase the risk of taking the next question and the potential payouts. Adding the two extra lifelines and coupling them with the extra dough did improve the game somewhat.
If the budget can handle giving away a higher paycheck, then let's reward contestants for their abilities with a higher jackpot. That was the sole reason behind J!'s doubling of its pot, among others. Hollywood Squares raised its payouts in the current series from what they were when John Davidson hosted (and subsequently reduced them when viewership numbers went down -- so there's your economics argument at work).
Now, if I were to do something like $10,000 as a base for Alphabetics -- which is still an increase over both Password Plus and Super Password, mind you -- and then offer something like a double-or-nothing if the player won by playing a Ca$hword-style game, some people might consider that an improvement. Some might not. It all depends on taste. PW's never really been a very climactic show in my book, save for when SP's pot got high after a drought of wins. This might explain why it's not returned to the airwaves as some of our favourite classic shows have returned (albeit often screwed up by Pearson/Freemantle).
Now, if you still want to disagree with me, OK, fine. I believe you've said you've worked in the industry before. Well, great! I still reserve the right to my opinon, just as you reserve the right to yours, and diversity of opinion is a great thing in my opinion, especially in here. I don't think there's any 'right' or 'wrong' about it. The issue is not as black-and-white as we've been portraying it, now that I think about it.
