Super Millionaire

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Michael Brandenburg\' date=\'May 27 2004, 02:47 PM\'] but bring back about 10-15 of the recent top winners from the daily syndicated version as the contestants for these programs as they once did for a "Tournament of Champions" during the "regular" Millionaire's prime-time run on ABC. [/quote]
 What is it with you people wanting to see people who've already won obscene amounts of money try to win MORE obscene amounts of money?

(Peter Sarrett, you sit down. You too, Leszek.

The appeal of the show is that EVERYONE gets to play. Take that away, and you have a show very few people care about.

[ChuckNet]

What is it with you people wanting to see people who've already won obscene amounts of money try to win MORE obscene amounts of money?

Yeah, if the public wanted that, there prolly would've been another ToC sometime during the original network run...aside from the generally disappointing results from that sole attempt, as you so accurately put it, the general public isn't interested in seeing big winners try and add to their more-than-substantial fortune.

Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious "Chuckie Baby")

[curtking]

What is it with you people wanting to see people who've already won obscene amounts of money try to win MORE obscene amounts of money?

It's exciting to see "the best of the best" play.  I don't think it has anything to do with money.

What's more, you might actually get a better caliber player.  Personality isn't everything, but the worst death knell that could have sounded for WWTBASM was three straight mid-level flame-outs to end the series.

BTW, UK Weakest Link did something similar -- winners from the daytime version were entered to play in the nighttime, higher-stakes version.

Curt

[Jimmy Owen]

I watched Meredith's show the other day and saw three people get no further than a thousand after four easy questions.  Why not make more of a competition by having the four easy questions fastest finger questions and whomever has the best time after that would win a thousand and get into the hot seat for the toughies?

[ShoeHorn]

/vitriol

I would take it that the format itself, is fine. The only reason we even had a millionaire for Super Mil last time around was because of the third tier lifelines. It's not that the questions were hard (face it, there is NO reason not to make it to $100k), it's the weak contestant pool. I've never seen a group so horrible as last night's flameouts. The trivia buff was the only shining spot of last night and the other guy with glasses who made it to 500k was extremely lucky on his part.

The question don't need to be dumbed down in the least. They're at an optimal level now. They are better than the original run of question which only became challenging at about $250K. And they are certainly on a better level than the syndie sets.

There's one solution to all this mess and it is indeed the 2nd elimination phone game.

We've had every format for phone contestant selection and we've seen what does and does not work. Eliminating the phone game just to throw in "variety" didn't net anything but early walkouts. Making it a 5 question, one call and you're in, format this time only gave the right to go on to those with the luck of a phone number early on the sheet from the ABC rep.

Granted, I might still be a little steamed for qualifying once and not getting a call back for the 2nd series, but, had I been selected, the 2nd level phone elimination might have weeded me out as quickly as anyone.

Sure, ABC and Davies couldn't afford to have someone win $5 mil or something every night of the series, but getting someone at least somewhere NEAR the third tier would have been more satifying.

It felt like I was watching a funeral on that last contestant. And "hope we'll be back real soon" from Regis wasn't all that uplifting (granted, he doesn't know whether it'll be picked up again).

The Idaho oral historian had such a great shot. I was one to bash Regis for trying to steer someone towards an answer until last night.

"Eric Menendez"

" Which one is NOT guilty..NOT guilty..."

"yeah, menendez"

"Are you sure? NOT guilty, right?"

But it's only easy if you know the answers, true.

/vitriol

I'll agree that the gargoyle question wasn't hard as much as just rather confusing. But most of you knew it, I am hopeful.

[leszekp]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'May 27 2004, 05:33 PM\']What is it with you people wanting to see people who've already won obscene amounts of money try to win MORE obscene amounts of money?

(Peter Sarrett, you sit down. You too, Leszek.

The appeal of the show is that EVERYONE gets to play. Take that away, and you have a show very few people care about.[/quote]
Well, you don't hear weekend duffers saying, "They shouldn't let Tiger Woods play in tournaments anymore - he's already won an obscene amount of money, and I deserve a chance at some of that cash".

The whole rationale behind any television program, be it sitcom, sports, or game show, is for it to be entertaining so that lots of people will watch and they can sell commercial time to make money. Any show needs to do whatever it takes to attract that audience. Former game show winners have shown that they're capable of performing under pressure; even if you don't feel that they should be favored in the selection process (a point of view that I certainly understand, even if I don't necessarily agree with it , they shouldn't be denied the same opportunity everyone else has to be on the show. And while the WWTBAM Tournament didn't do so well, the J! TOC usually gets above-average ratings, so it's not the idea of  a tournament per se that turns people off.

Just wish that there was a venue for former winners to compete in; would be interesting to see if there was an audience for that kind of competition. Looked for a while like "Grand Slam"was going to be that experiment, but by now there would have been an announcement if it were going to be on ABC this summer. For that matter, they had already backed off from the concept of former gameshow winners battling it out to a more generic "gameshow with balls" idea.

[Jimmy Owen]

I'd like to see Bill Gates as a contestant on "The Apprentice."

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'leszekp\' date=\'May 27 2004, 05:20 PM\'] Well, you don't hear weekend duffers saying, "They shouldn't let Tiger Woods play in tournaments anymore - he's already won an obscene amount of money, and I deserve a chance at some of that cash".
 [/quote]
 Any golfer willing to pony up the entrance fees can play in the tournaments leading up to and including the US Open. Any golfer who has proven his worth may attend Q-School in an effort to earn a PGA Tour card and start trying to win some of that scratch for themselves.

Your complaint seems to be that there is no Professional Game Show Contestant's tour.

[leszekp]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'May 27 2004, 07:38 PM\']Any golfer willing to pony up the entrance fees can play in the tournaments leading up to and including the US Open. Any golfer who has proven his worth may attend Q-School in an effort to earn a PGA Tour card and start trying to win some of that scratch for themselves.

Your complaint seems to be that there is no Professional Game Show Contestant's tour.[/quote]
And anyone who wants to get on a gameshow has any number of current opportunities to do so, as long as they can beat out other potential contestants. I'm not sure what your argument is; is it that previous game show winners keep people who haven't been on a game show before from having a chance to win some money, and that isn't fair? Last time I checked, being on a game show wasn't an "inalienable right", and being better at something than someone else wasn't being unfair.

I have yet to hear a cogent, rational reason as to why former winners should recuse themselves from trying out for other shows. If they would make a better contestant than someone who has never been on a game show before, then it makes sense for the show to select them, and the issue of whether they've won before doesn't matter. The Tiger Woods simile was an attempt to show that the argument that "they've already won a lot of money" doesn't make the grade. It also sort of addresses the argument that if someone has won a competition before, people won't want to watch them again. In the UK, where repeat contestants are far more common than in the US, the ratings and profusion of game shows compared to the US suggests that isn't a problem. Most of the audience for game shows aren't fanatics like us, and won't recognize the occasional repeat contestant anyway - every face will be new to them.

I'm not complaining about the lack of a "Pro Game Show Tour"; more of a wistful regret, perhaps . Regardless, there may or may not be an audience for a regular series of shows, but there might well be for a one-off "event".

[Millionaire76]

The problem Super Millionaire is faced is probably less promoting the show before it started. There were last day commercial  telling when it airs. That was the problem with "World Idol" and achieved 6.5 Million U.S. viewers.

[adamjk]

I can certainly see why questions are harder, but did anyone pick up on the fact that there hasn't been a single contestant who had one of their original three lifelines intact before attempting the $500k question?

I think one of the reasons for this, is that because some of the contestants have used their lifelines prematurely. They think they know what the answer is, they use a lifeline, and then realize that the answer they thought was it is indeed it. They use the lifeline almost out of neccessity. If some people would just think things through more, maybe someone will get to the next dimension with at least 1 of the three original lifelines remaining. They have to remember that more often then not, your first instinct is often the correct one.

[starcade]

The questions started getting difficult at _$10,000_ -- you could get a (in other versions) tier-three question on question six!  Don't let SM get Greed-itis.  It's of no use to advertise a gigantic prize no one could ever think of winning.

Leszek:  I think what the other person is saying is that it's not that it's just "pro game show contestants" (probably more "pro impress the contestant coordinator" types), but that anyone who gets the five qualifying questions right gets in the pool and that the process is (ostensibly) random as to who gets in.

Do you honestly think I could impress a contestant coordinator?

Contrast the SM model to TPiR, which has become next to unwatchable in a sea of "PICK ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" shirts by dullards who have no idea how to play the game.

[That Don Guy]

[quote name=\'Craig Karlberg\' date=\'May 26 2004, 04:00 AM\'] As far as Sundays go, revert to 7 PM if it means not showing the ABC Sunday movie that day. [/quote]
There hasn't been a Sunday movie on ABC in a while (the Disney movie at 7:00 moved to Saturday nights), although I think ABC can do without America's Funniest Home Videos at 7:00 (or, if they decide to go up against The Simpsons, American Dreams, and Cold Case, show it at 8:00 in place of Extreme Makeover: Home Edition) for one or two sweeps nights.  (9:00 is out of the question, especially when "rerun-free" Alias restarts there in January.)

-- Don

[tvwxman]

A Few more comments...

First off, I for one am glad SM did well enough the last two nights, considering it was a last minute drop in to replace Adam Corolla's Domestic Diva contest....there was no listing in the TV Guide, and ads promoting the show were hit or miss....and  yet still viewers found the show.

Second, regarding contestants...aren't we in a damned if we do/damned if we don't arguement? When the show started five years ago, complaints were made that the contestant pool was demographically challenged...so Davies went out and fixed it with traditional contestant selection....you all remember how that turned out...

Now we're back to square one looking for contestants who get an honest to goodness fair crack at being on the show, yet at the same time, can show that they deserve to be there...

The format isn't broke, kids...but ABC sure is.... I guess there is a saving grace in ABC's woes, since if they were doing any better, SM would NEVER have seen the light of day!

matt

[ShoeHorn]

[quote name=\'tvwxman\' date=\'May 28 2004, 05:29 AM\'] Now we're back to square one looking for contestants who get an honest to goodness fair crack at being on the show, yet at the same time, can show that they deserve to be there...
 [/quote]
 That's just the reason to bring back that callback and 2nd level screening. Granted, the luck of the draw is still there, but the crappy players would most likely be weeded out of the lot.

Not perfect, but it beats the auditions.