Of shows on the air...

[ChuckNet]

I know what most of you are saying: the above happened when ABC did it as well. I agree, but the lack of the Fastest Finger, which brought out the $125K and up players, is surely showing out this year...these events (again, in my opinion) are happening more often than it should. I keep asking myself, "Who screens these people?" when I really should not be.

Might explain why we haven't had a $1M winner in 2 1/2 yrs, as well.

Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious "Chuckie Baby")

[Jimmy Owen]

As a producer what would you rather have-smart but unphotogenic people who break your budget, or attractive people who take forever to win a grand?

[zachhoran]

[quote name=\'ChuckNet\' date=\'Sep 27 2005, 11:02 PM\']

Might explain why we haven't had a $1M winner in 2 1/2 yrs, as well.

[snapback]97888[/snapback]

[/quote]

Put an asterisk next to that as Bob-O Essig did win a million on Super Millionaire
in February 2004, but he only had to answer twelve questions to win it due to the upgraded money levels.

[PYLdude]

[quote name=\'zachhoran\' date=\'Sep 28 2005, 09:07 AM\']Put an asterisk next to that as Bob-O Essig did win a million on Super Millionaire
in February 2004, but he only had to answer twelve questions to win it due to the upgraded money levels.

[snapback]97914[/snapback]

[/quote]

Only 12, yes, but don't compare the questions on Super Millionaire to the questions on the regular show. The upper level questions on SM, at least through my eyes, were harder questions than they are on the normal show. Not saying the normal show upper level questions are pieces of cake either, but the level of difficulty wasn't as high. If you were gonna win the top prize, you were really gonna have to work for it, moreso than you normally would.

But then again, Zach is the only person in the world who actually thinks that the Perfesser is right when he says that celebs should play for home viewers rather than charities, so why am I not surprised?

[Dbacksfan12]

[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Sep 28 2005, 07:47 AM\']As a producer what would you rather have-smart but unphotogenic people who break your budget, or attractive people who take forever to win a grand?
[/quote]
As the person who has to sign the checks--I'd rather have the dumb clods who continually win $1,000--hey...more money for me to take the wifey out to Sarritino's for supper.  At the same time; I'd realize that people who only win $1,000 on a show with "Millionaire" in the title doesn't necessairly make good TV.  

That's why you have balance, some "unattractive" folk who are good game players, and some "attractive" folk who aren't.  I'm not saying that being smart/unattractive and dumb/attractive is mutually exclusive, because they're not; but, at least to me, that's how it comes off on TV.

[TLEberle]

I would hope that attractiveness wouldn't matter.  I would rather watch someone who is having fun with the game, interacting with the host and who is genial in victory or defeat, rather than worrying about whether someone would win a beauty contest.

One of the things I like about the daily Millionaire is that $25,000 is not a foregone conclusion, as opposed to the nighttime show, where if you employed your lifelines properly, you were guaranteed $125,000.  It is interesting to watch people struggle with the questions, debate whether to use a lifeline, or which one.

I would gladly pay out $250,000 to a good player if it's good for the show, dullard or not.

[whammy5000]

There's two basic reasons why I don't watch Millionaire anymore:

1) There hasn't been a big winner in 40 forevers and I'm guessing it'll be about 50 more before we see the next $1,000,000 win looking at what kind of contestants they're putting up there.

2) The two Millionaire airings here in Gadsden are at the same time as Super Password and Card Sharks on GSN.

Back to the original topic, I'd say that the worst contestants are all from reality shows.  There's always one or two people in that house/island/race-around-the-world that just bite at your last nerve and screw up the whole show for the other contestants, and usually the viewers, who for some reason or another keep watching in agony while that one obnoxious idiot goes and sucks all the fun out of the show.  Anyone else notice this, or am I crazy?  Well, I guess that one's too obvious, but still... am I right?

[Ian Wallis]

1) There hasn't been a big winner in 40 forevers and I'm guessing it'll be about 50 more before we see the next $1,000,000 win looking at what kind of contestants they're putting up there.

How many people here are annoyed that there hasn't been a big winner in so long?  Personally, it doesn't really bother me.  I think most of us would agree that a million dollars is a life-changing amount of money -- winning it should be hard.  If it's given away too often, it lessens the significance, IMHO.  Having said that, I think they should go back to having some sort of phone competition to allow Mr and Mrs Joe Average to be contestants, rather than people they pre-select.

Are there any other shows that have gone on so long without a big jackpot winner?  The only other one I can think of is "Greed", which never had anybody win the top prize.

[zachhoran]

[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' date=\'Sep 30 2005, 08:00 AM\']

Are there any other shows that have gone on so long without a big jackpot winner?  The only other one I can think of is "Greed", which never had anybody win the top prize.

[snapback]98141[/snapback]

[/quote]

No one won the top prize on Eubanks CS, although a few people did win the lions' share of the $32K max.

How long did it take for the Super Bonus stunt on the 50s Beat the Clock to hit $64K? Was it as least as long as Greed's run(eight months)?