Deal Or No Deal

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'TeppanYaki\' date=\'Dec 20 2005, 11:08 PM\']I stand corrected regarding the ADR tonight; I think from SS and Matt's comments I was more vigilant to watch for that and it showed.  For instance, the whole "low money revealed equals big offers" ADR made me wish that we actually saw Howie talk about that more.

My only complaint is that they didn't show what would have been offered if he had gone on from his deal point; it's that "YOU FOOL!" feeling if you have big money in the case.[/quote]
I don't think you had to be more vigilant. The editing on Day Two was just that much worse, especially the ADR which was not only badly done, but badly done and overused.    I'm fearful now that they put all their effort into making the first show as sharp as they could (failing in the process) and now subsequent shows are going to be even uglier.

It's not something an average viewer will be conscious of, but it's a quality thing that shouldn't have to be a problem, and if they DID get it right, the show would be that much better.

[The Ol' Guy]

I found myself enjoying it a bit more tonight. Deal or No Deal is a better title than what the game really is: Shaft The Banker. It's fun as a cat and mouse game. I no longer care whether a person wins a million or not...the odds are 26:1...instead, did they keep from shooting themselves in the foot long enough to snag a nice offer?

One thing that might be a bit more impressive, just for what it's worth - why just one banker? As long as it's all a fraud anyway, go big! What if you had something akin to a major executive board sitting around the table behind the dark glass...  5-6 people with one at the head of the desk, looking like they're negotiating and later arguing over how much to pay for the case? Make the contestant sweat a bit more. When the decision is made, the big guy picks up the phone and calls. Howie can say, "They have decided to offer you $314,550 for the case."  The Bank Trust, maybe?

[pianogeek]

I got my TiVo to work.  So now I can see.

Again...the LMAD'03-ish editing, but little better.  Bring Mark Gentile and the video editing crew for smooth live to tape editing.  hehe.

But the show...very nicely excuted.

[MSTieScott]

[quote name=\'TeppanYaki\' date=\'Dec 20 2005, 10:08 PM\']My only complaint is that they didn't show what would have been offered if he had gone on from his deal point; it's that "YOU FOOL!" feeling if you have big money in the case.

[snapback]105361[/snapback]

[/quote]
I don't share that opinion. As soon as the contestant takes a deal, I don't care what case the contestant would have eliminated next, I don't care about what future bank offers could have been... I just want to know whether the case the contestant chose had more money or less money than what they settled for. Once we know that and get a reaction shot from the contestant, let's get someone new out there.

One thing that I'd like to see when the banker's offers are being considered is more of an emphasis on the odds of whether the contestant's case could have more or less than the current offer. Leave that nice shot of the contestant surrounded by the remaining values up longer and have Howie remind them that if they reject the offer, there's a 4 in 15 chance that their case will have a higher amount, while there's a 11 in 15 chance that their case will be worse.

Yes, it's important to the strategy of the game that the better odds of eliminating those low cases will drive the next offer higher, but that won't immediately be recognized by the viewers watching this for the first or second time. It will also help to make those relatively small first couple of offers more meaningful -- there's less than a 50% chance the contestant has more money than that, yet they're turning it down?!? It would be pretty entertaining (to me) if you could get a contestant to buckle early on by emphasizing that. Then, once you get into there being only one big case that's driving the big bank offers, you can talk about how eliminating that case will screw things up.

After a couple of episodes, I find myself watching and hoping that many of the big dollar amounts are eliminated early on, just to see what the bank offers look like. Hmm, probably not the greatest reaction, is it?

I'll probably watch all week because of the "event" mentality of this five-episode run. But to make this a weekly series would be a mistake -- because there's so little variation in how each game plays out, seeing it consistently would kill any uniqueness.

--
Scott Robinson

[chris319]

I found myself enjoying it a bit more tonight.

Better contestants, I think. That first contestant was hard to take.

They DEFINITELY need to have two contestants play to completion per show -- not to cycle more contestants through, but to see more games being completed. Seeing only one game played to completion per show is just too drawn out.

What if you had something akin to a major executive board sitting around the table behind the dark glass... 5-6 people with one at the head of the desk, looking like they're negotiating and later arguing over how much to pay for the case? Make the contestant sweat a bit more. When the decision is made, the big guy picks up the phone and calls. Howie can say, "They have decided to offer you $314,550 for the case." The Bank Trust, maybe?

I don't see a future for you in the game show show consulting business.

[goongas]

They DEFINITELY need to have two contestants play to completion per show -- not to cycle more contestants through, but to see more games being completed. Seeing only one game played to completion per show is just too drawn out.

I thought the same thing while watching Tuesday's episode.  I knew nothing interesting would happen after the first contestant was done because of a lack of time to finish a new game.  And the voiceovers were annoying to me tonight.

[BrandonFG]

I have an idea for those who keep whining that they're not watching b/c there's no game or skill required. After each round, after the bank offer (when a contestant says "No Deal!"), they get a question. Get it right, and the game goes on. Get it wrong, the game ends right there.

Don't know if a consolation amount should be offered, maybe give a higher amount based on what round it is, i.e. round one is only $1,000 or so, but round four could be $5,000 or something.

Better yet, don't offer any consolation money. You had your chance to take the "deal". You get it wrong, you lose the money. Now, there are some minor kinks, such as how much was in the contestant's briefcase, and where's the $1 million one, but that can be worked out.

[Gromit]

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Dec 20 2005, 06:09 PM\']No.  It is an improper way of using the English language, no matter where you're from. 

[snapback]105336[/snapback]

[/quote]

I'm pretty sure it's taught differently around the world.
http://www.improb.com/news/2001/aug/math101.html seems to agree, as the Brits and Aussies, and quite likely the Canucks (where Howie learned how to speak) all add the "and".

I guess I'm just not as attentive as some of you are, I don't notice the edits at all.

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'Gromit\' date=\'Dec 21 2005, 01:31 AM\'][quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Dec 20 2005, 06:09 PM\']No.  It is an improper way of using the English language, no matter where you're from. 

[snapback]105336[/snapback]

[/quote]

I'm pretty sure it's taught differently around the world.
http://www.improb.com/news/2001/aug/math101.html seems to agree, as the Brits and Aussies, and quite likely the Canucks (where Howie learned how to speak) all add the "and".[/quote]
I stand slightly corrected, though I assumed when you said "regional" that you meant regions of the United States.  Still, the fact that there may or may not be a different standard in other English-speaking nations (I don't see anything definitive on your page, and there are at least a couple of Kiwi references that agree with me, as do an overwhelming number of presumably American contributors) doesn't change the fact that Howie is doing it wrong here.  Of course, so is their announcer, so it obviously doesn't matter to the producers.  I still find it sloppy, and I'm certainly not the only one.

[davidbod]

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Dec 21 2005, 02:09 AM\']No.  It is an improper way of using the English language, no matter where you're from. [/quote]

The geezers who invented the language might disagree with you there.

This from the country that gave us "I'll write you Tuesday". Sheesh.

[chris319]

Is no one bothered by Howie saying (something along the lines of) "the contestant wins whatsever in the case"?

Whatsever?

[MrBuddwing]

[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Dec 21 2005, 01:36 AM\']Is no one bothered by Howie saying (something along the lines of) "the contestant wins whatsever in the case"?

Whatsever?

[snapback]105392[/snapback]

[/quote]


I suppose what he's saying is, "what's ever in the case," but of course, it should be "whatever is in the case," or "whatever's in the case."

Whatsamattayou?

[nbcburbank]

[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Dec 21 2005, 01:36 AM\']Is no one bothered by Howie saying (something along the lines of) "the contestant wins whatsever in the case"?

Whatsever?

[snapback]105392[/snapback]

[/quote]


 Nope. I'm not particuarly bothered by it at all. Must just be you.

[pianogeek]

For some who haven't checked it out, at the NBC Deal site are some short, exclusive clips from the past two shows.  Click on the "Highlight Video" area.

Between what's on the short internet clips and the edited TV show, it's quite refreshing to look at the internet clips.  I've gotten to see the natural interaction and how Howie hosts well, minus the reality show-ish background music and sound effects.

That's quite a difference.  Now I know that the family's emotions are real.  It looks forced on TV with all the effects and editing.

[NickS]

[quote name=\'MSTieScott\' date=\'Dec 20 2005, 11:50 PM\'][quote name=\'TeppanYaki\' date=\'Dec 20 2005, 10:08 PM\']My only complaint is that they didn't show what would have been offered if he had gone on from his deal point; it's that "YOU FOOL!" feeling if you have big money in the case.

[snapback]105361[/snapback]

[/quote]
I don't share that opinion. As soon as the contestant takes a deal, I don't care what case the contestant would have eliminated next, I don't care about what future bank offers could have been... I just want to know whether the case the contestant chose had more money or less money than what they settled for.

[snapback]105370[/snapback]

[/quote]

So you're saying that if Karen Van did have $1M in it, had, say, four or five cases left, took a deal -- you'd want to find out what were in the cases and go on?  Wouldn't you like to see agony that she could have had a $500K offer on the board if she went on?  Just asking.

I'm happy with the show, don't get me wrong, but there are places where it can improve.  Then again, we're the purists here.