TPiR Recap - 10/7/2013 (2013 PCH Week Day 1)

[PriceBusterXL]

Directing contestants on how excited they can be? They can't be more excited than usual since they're on TV and have a chance to win a nice prize even if it isn't a car? That's terrible. I've accepted some things since reshoots became the norm (even the redoing of CODs), but that crosses the line. Let the reactions happen. Go with the flow. Unless it's something that's absolutely unairable, let it go.

Sideshow brought up an excellent point as to why Hole in One was shot the way it was. That makes so much sense, that it's probably the case. At least I hope it is.

Nothing is wrong with a casher being played, but it'd be best if it was the last game every show this week and the first three or four (for me preferably three) games, potentially excluding the car games at their discretion, are setup to be won.

Well, maybe I'm not totally against the idea of a casher being played on a gimmick week such as this............But I do think that there are certain ones that shouldn't go together for this week. Punch (from today) and Plinko are pretty much just giving you a chance to win $50K or $25K and if you put either one of them on PCH $20,000 Week, I just think it'd be too much of a gamble.

If Mike wants to put a cash game for a gimmick week like this, then that's fine..........As long as there are ones that can be guaranteed to be won, like IITB, Grand Game, or 1/2 Off. One of those cashers would be OK.....but not Pay The Rent.

[MannyCav]

Code: [Select]

I acknowledge that in connection with my participation on the Program, I will acquire confidential information
about CBS, Producer and the Program, including trade secrets, operational methods, contestant winnings, and the outcome
of the episode in which I appear (collectively, "Confidential Information''). I further acknowledge that any disclosure by me
of Confidential Information prior to CBS's broadcast of the episode will eliminate the suspense regarding the outcome of
the episode to viewers watching the Program which will result in irreparable damage to Producer, and CBS therefore, I
hereby expressly agree that Producer and CBS shall be entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief, without posting any
bond, to prevent and/or cure any breach or threatened breach of this paragraph by me. Accordingly, I agree that at all times
prior to CBS's broadcast of the Program, I will not, without prior written approval of Producer and CBS, disclose or discuss
with anyone (including, without limitation, any media source or entity) any Confidential Information that I have obtained in connection with my participation in the program.
That being said, I don't think they would go after some random guy on twitter who spoils a Honda being won. They don't seem like the group who would want to "Make an Example" of someone just to prevent that sorta stuff.

At the risk of making this about legal stuff, if they did, in fact, feel compelled to make an example out of and go after random Honda man from the audience in your example, what, exactly, could they do under "injunctive and other equitable relief?" Forfeiture of prizes is obviously not an option (the case being that the audience member never played), so you're stuck with a pocket ban of never being called down to the row (never being selected) or a (possibly lifetime) ban from setting foot on the studio premises. If they wanted to seek financial damages, how much would the courts value this "irreparable damage"? How would they determine what the plaintiff is entitled to?

If you'd (well, probably mrbrown) have to crowd the topic with too much legalese in order to properly respond, there's no need to feel compelled to respond just in order to satisfy my personal curiosity (I don't intend on needing any such advice or whatever, anyway), but it is just that--personal curiosity.

[vadernader]

It bothers me that the $20,000 gimmick affects a contestant's position in the Showcase Showdown and the Showcase.

What in the hell was Adam doing during Hole in One?  That was some of the worst directing I've ever seen -- it was next to impossible to tell where the ball was headed, and some people watching in SD were apparently having trouble even seeing it.  That was just plain stupid.

Agreed and Agreed. The $20,000 should not be counted in either of those cases. As for Adam, His directing has some positive aspects, but there are definitely huge negatives, the main one I can easily think of is his obsession. the freakin' Jib.

So now they're halfway scripting the show.  Fantastic.

Mark Goodson would be rolling over in his grave if he knew this was going on.

I don't think so. First, I think he's run out of grave with all the rolling for everything else the new regime has done "wrongly". But second, because Goodson was an innovator. I'm sure most here might not like to think of scripting parts as innovation, but I think this quote puts it best.

Here's why I don't sweat this small stuff: 

Back in the 70’s game show pioneer Mark Goodson made the bold move to take a hit formula show, TPIR, to a theretofore unheard of one hour format!.  People, audience, fans, partners and critics alike said to Goodson “No, don’t do it!”!

Goodson pushed forward.  He hired a brash and brilliant young producer (Jay Wolpert), who brought a fresh, outrageous (for the times) approach to the show with crazy showcase skits, and regular theme shows.  And all the while the naysayers of Goodson's time cried "Don't change anything!", “It will be the death of The Price Is Right!”.   But Mark Goodson stayed true to his genius vision, and CBS in their own programming savvy, endorsed Goodson by allotting the new 60minute TPIR the coveted “Golden Hour”.

Those early years weren’t easy, and just like now there were plenty of things that were constantly worked and re-worked, or tossed out completely (remember Professor Price or The Shower Game?).  But throughout it all Mark Goodson consistently ignored the naysayers of his day, just like Drew and The Crew are probably ignoring all these continual naysayers.  Because of Mark Goodson’s genius, and his unshakeable vision, decades later we still have the first ever hour long game show in television history.

As far as the whole "I want a six you're giving me a ten!", I think that is just trying to make sure contestants don't seem "fake". I think one of the big complaints nowadays is that people believe the producers hype the contestants up so much and/or the contestants think they are supposed to act like that to get called, that they become someone they aren't. Someone overly goofy and/or excited, too excited, for a little prize like a gym. I think the extra couple minutes to calm someone down on a smaller prize makes for better television. I would rather see someone mildy excited or not excited at all for a small prize than "over-the-top" like it's $1,000,000.

At the risk of making this about legal stuff, if they did, in fact, feel compelled to make an example out of and go after random Honda man from the audience in your example, what, exactly, could they do under "injunctive and other equitable relief?" Forfeiture of prizes is obviously not an option (the case being that the audience member never played), so you're stuck with a pocket ban of never being called down to the row (never being selected) or a (possibly lifetime) ban from setting foot on the studio premises. If they wanted to seek financial damages, how much would the courts value this "irreparable damage"? How would they determine what the plaintiff is entitled to?

I believe what would happen is the person who leaked such information would be prohibited from returning to the BBS for a given period of time with agreement that once they are allowed to return they agree that if they repeat the offense they will be permanently 'banned' from the BBS. If there was money involved (I don't believe there would be, based on the aforementioned agreement), they could be discussing how much revenue they gain from one episode and basing it off that, probably bankrupting the person.

However, again, I highly highly doubt they would ever do this.

[Roadgeek Adam]

What in the hell was Adam doing during Hole in One?  That was some of the worst directing I've ever seen -- it was next to impossible to tell where the ball was headed, and some people watching in SD were apparently having trouble even seeing it.  That was just plain stupid.

Speaking from someone who has an SDTV, you couldn't see Regina the first time, could only see her left side 2nd time.

Drew was barely visible if at all.

[whinbaby]

The 7,893rd episode (21st for Season 42)

Showcase #1

• Home Gym:  $1,595
• 32" LCD TV:  $579
• Mazda Miata:  $25,750

My bid:  $27,700 (Difference of $224! )

Showcase #2

• Trip to Big Sur:  $4,061
• Trip to the Bahamas:  $10,826
• Trip to Santorini:  $8,656

My bid:  $24,000 (D'oh!)

Modeling Totals:  October 7, 2013 (OSAD 10/21)
Highs and lows among shows for the OSAD in previous years
High:  $82,653 (10/21/2003)
Low:  $13,528 (10/21/2004)

Rachel Reynolds
Total:  16/$87,754.00--New OSAD high! (13/$58,665.00, 3/$29,089.00)
Cars:  2/$49,820.00 (1/$24,070.00, 1/$25,750.00)
Trips:  3/$23,543.00 (3/$23,543.00, 0/$0.00)
Cash Prizes:  0/$0.00 (0/$0.00, 0/$0.00)

Melissa Rycroft
Total:  10/$57,874.00 (4/$7,539.00, 6/$50,335.00)
Cars:  1/$15,595.00 (0/$0.00, 1/$15,595.00)
Trips:  1/$5,396.00 (0/$0.00, 1/$5,396.00)
Cash Prizes:  1/$25,000.00 (0/$250.00, 1/$24,750.00)

All Prizes
Total:  25/$144,028.00 (16/$64,604.00, 9/$79,424.00)
Cars:  3/$65,415.00 (1/$24,070.00, 2/$41,345.00)
Trips:  4/$28,939.00 (3/$23,543.00, 1/$5,396.00)
Cash Prizes:  1/$25,000.00 (0/$250.00, 1/$24,750.00)

Season to date
Rachel Reynolds (11 shows)
Total:  166/$715,704.00 (108/$320,576.00, 58/$395,128.00)
Cars:  16/$332,444.00 (4/$83,147.00, 12/$249,297.00)
Trips:  23/$180,758.00 (17/$135,796.00, 6/$44,962.00)
Cash Prizes:  1/$16,000.00 (0/$0.00, 1/$16,000.00)

All Prizes (11 shows)
Total:  311/$1,791,720.22 (191/$695,872.00, 120/$1,095,848.22)
Cars:  34/$681,423.00 (11/$217,004.00, 23/$464,419.00)
Trips:  37/$283,521.00 (24/$192,243.00, 13/$91,278.00)
Cash Prizes:  14/$417,500.00 (1/$39,250.00, 13/$378,250.00)

Career to date
Rachel Reynolds (1,216 shows)
Total:  11,467/$60,645,304.17 (7,140/$27,240,308.15, 4,327/$33,404,996.02)
Cars:  1,236/$27,924,874.00 (481/$10,378,232.00, 755/$17,546,642.00)
Trips:  1,010/$7,660,054.83 (532/$3,902,335.20, 478/$3,757,719.63)
Cash Prizes:  195/$2,260,227.00 (39/$397,198.00, 156/$1,863,029.00)

My viewing to date (2,377 shows)
Total:  61,988/$338,407,448.89 (38,585/$147,166,505.72, 23,403/$191,240,943.17)
Cars:  6,719/$144,765,491.51 (2,601/$54,749,332.51, 4,118/$90,016,159.00)
Trips:  4,990/$34,933,651.20 (2,569/$17,905,168.20, 2,421/$17,028,483.00)
Cash Prizes:  1,770/$38,315,982.00 (348/$6,266,540.00, 1,422/$32,049,442.00)

[SteveGavazzi]

I don't think so. First, I think he's run out of grave with all the rolling for everything else the new regime has done "wrongly". But second, because Goodson was an innovator. I'm sure most here might not like to think of scripting parts as innovation, but I think this quote puts it best.

And I think you're being completely ludicrous.  The idea that Goodson would ever have wanted retakes of contestant reactions is nuts.  The man wouldn't even allow scripted zingers on the Squares portion of The Match Game/Hollywood Squares Hour because he thought it made it look like they were rigging things.

[htmlcc92]

Not too bad of an episode in my opinion. I don't really care either way about the angle in Hole in One. In my view, I was still able to see, for example, that Drew's shot was clearly too far to the left, and the contestant's was very close, but just to the right.

I know they had it last week as well, but I do also really love the win / loss reveal for That's Too Much, showing the price the contestant selected and the one immediately preceding it.

And always love random shout outs to Bob during the spay or neuter plug.

[thepriceis_J]

As far as the whole "I want a six you're giving me a ten!", I think that is just trying to make sure contestants don't seem "fake". I think one of the big complaints nowadays is that people believe the producers hype the contestants up so much and/or the contestants think they are supposed to act like that to get called, that they become someone they aren't. Someone overly goofy and/or excited, too excited, for a little prize like a gym. I think the extra couple minutes to calm someone down on a smaller prize makes for better television. I would rather see someone mildy excited or not excited at all for a small prize than "over-the-top" like it's $1,000,000.

So they're trying to make contestants not seem "fake" by faking their reactions?

I completely understand your point, but I'm of the mindset that they should just let those things play out. The best moments happen that way. If I want to complain that a contestant is fake, then I'm fine with that. That isn't the shows fault, it's the contestants', and the show shouldn't try to fix it. I'm fully confident in Stan's ability to pick contestants. Even with the picture selection process, Stan is there with Mike to help him pick. If some slip through the cracks, I'm not holding it against the show (unless the contestants turn out to be jerks).

[Paranoia_Survivor]

Regarding Do the Math, I think the reveal would work better if the answer ( red X if wrong, chalk fireworks if right ) is revealed before the second price. For me, it's a bit simpler to think "The contestant has won/lost therefore the price of the 2nd prize is $X" than "The price of the 2nd prize is $X, therefore the contestant has won/lost".

Another possibility to improve this is that since the set is school/chalkboard based , a possibility of doing the reveal would be to have Drew ask "is the contestant right" then on the main screen either an A+ is drawn on indicating a winner, or an F indicating a loser. This would then be followed by the reveal of the 2nd price.

[GuyWithFace]

Something I utterly failed to notice when I posted earlier in the thread is that this does confirm the $20,000 is not in fact limited to the first half.

I completely understand your point, but I'm of the mindset that they should just let those things play out. The best moments happen that way.

Retaking contestant reactions has been done on primetime game shows for at least the past seven years. This page has a recollection from a Show Me The Money audience member where a reveal and subsequent celebration were redone at least twice for no discernible reason.

[Goodson] wouldn't even allow scripted zingers on the Squares portion of The Match Game/Hollywood Squares Hour because he thought it made it look like they were rigging things.

...A decision which caused the program to suffer, along with the question quality. One of his few missteps, without a doubt.

[MannyCav]

The low point was the Showcases, and while I don't know what's been the case with reshooting come on downs as has been said, but after the show, they did a whole bunch of reaction shots with Katie standing behind her Showcase podium alone on the Turntable.  They spent anywhere from ten to fifteen minutes until they finally got what they wanted out of her.  I don't know who the stage director is now, but he kept asking her to react to the home gym to get the "right" amount of enthusiasm out of her ("You gave me a ten.  I need a six!").

That did it for me.  If they're trying to engineer the excitement out of the contestants in this way, then perhaps there isn't much excitement left to the show in its current state.  Still, I had a ticket for a taping the following week.  That show airs next Monday.

I've been mulling over this for a while. This is really an unfortunate (and for the show, sad) state of affairs. The case now appears to be they're giving what is essentially acting lessons to the contestants so they can retake shots. Everyone acts similarly, and as has been reported before, they assign seats based on where they want to place the contestants themselves, so you've got that part engineered, as well. Also, rather than the contestants showing genuine enthusiasm for the prizes, you've got Drew telling all car-winners to go see their cars, and this has been going on for years now. What was one among many parts of what made the show exciting to watch in the past was how genuine it was, and the wide cast of contestants, yea, characters that participated. You didn't know who was going to show up or how they would react to the prizes, the games, or even the television atmosphere. Remember Secret X Alberto (he's on the DVD)? He was a very bland-acting contest, but he's still memorable to me because of how differently he acted from others. Or how about that Golden Road motorhome winner that shot up the crowd to celebrate with friends and family after winning without Bob prompting him? There's too many examples to list here because this was the norm. Again, a wide cast of characters made for genuine and more exciting television.

Where's that signature I see floating around here sometimes where someone points out the irony of the predictability of the show's attempt to go towards the variety show direction?

[GuyWithFace]

Remember Secret X Alberto (he's on the DVD)? He was a very bland-acting contest, but he's still memorable to me because of how differently he acted from others.

I believe you are thinking of Poker Game. The Alberto that comes to mind was on the first permanent hour-long show, and barely even moved the Big Wheel.

[MannyCav]

I swore it was Secret X. I guess I was mixing up two different occasions. In any case, you're thinking of the correct Alberto.