What gets old is the incessant hand-wringing that takes place whenever an alleged change may potentially come. You don't even know why you don't like it, because you don't know what it is. You just don't like it because Mike said he might do it, and that is what gets old.
I can't speak for anyone else but myself, but I'll call out bullshlt on both sides of the coin, no matter if it Roger was behind it, like the icky Hollywood Mural, or something Mike did, like hypothetically, this door change. Neither one is without fault, though I find I tend to agree with you here, unfortunately, simply because I feel too many people knee-jerk over a change Mike makes, simply because he is Mike, and not Roger. The Dobkowitz example you mentioned up thread was honestly fairly accurate, but I think that's also a sign of the forum's era, as well, very reactionary. This is most palpable in the recap threads, where a show is adjudicated on the exclusive ingredient of the mucho of pricing games won, contrasted amidst the slat of games lost, sans concernment of any auxiliary constituent of the day's production.
Of course, to be fair, many, though not all, of those who do complain, don't really understand, or have a first-person background, of the logistics of how freaking difficult it is to run a game show or another program, in totality. I mean, if you [general sense of the word] saw the backstage look of show's production efforts recently, not to mention the various cadences that have to be called out all the time, if you've seen some of the director's cuts uploads of Price, or any other show. A fascinating, relatable example is the Game Show Marathon, run by a few folks who have a little background in these requirements, but not nearly much as anyone on the staff of Price. No matter what you think about such efforts, that was hard to run, for all the requirements you need; cameras, audio, visual, graphical, etc. As such, yes, I might criticize, but it merely comes from the eye test, but my opinions are little more than a trained, not well educated eye, with the exception of hosting. This is merely because my background comes from acting, so I'd reason I know how the host should perform his 'role' on stage.
As always, no matter what your opinions are on the show, if you must disagree, attack the idea, not the person. Additionally, make sure your post makes sense, needs to posted by you, at this moment, and adds to the discussion, in terms of perspectives, information, deep analysis/analyses, history and/or precedent, or new developments.
My thoughts on this door vicissitude? How can I judge it remotely? I haven't seen it, I've only heard of it. I'd never judge a movie based on its premise, or just a written, 2 sentence blurb; the selfsame intellection appertains here. It is only logical that I will have to wait and see, like the rest of us, barring an image of it popping up prior to this post appearing on the board. I importune you to share the tantamount predilection.
William Arthur Ward says what I mean here, with respect to the determinative two paragraphs: "Before you act, listen. Before you react, think. Before you spend, earn. Before you criticize, wait. Before you pray, forgive. Before you quit, try."
