compdude512 wrote:
CBSpromoman wrote:
In other words, without having seen him give the 'Price' format a shot, I can think of WORSE candidates. MANY, in fact.
Yeah, like Ryan Seacrest. "You have a price of $13,950 on this car. The actual retail price...will be read, after this." That kind of crap he pulls on 'Idol' drives me NUTS! (Which is why I love Bob Barker; he knows how to do a suspenseful reveal and get it done WITHOUT making us go through x amount of commercials.)
You realize, don't you, that this isn't Ryan Seacrest's
choice? The producers of the show
make him do that to stretch the suspense. Barker routinely stretches the suspense by delaying price reveals on various pricing games. As he says, "he milks it for all it's worth."
The only reason Barker doesn't stretch the suspense through a commercial break is because the format of the show won't work that way. But if there was a way he could do it, and he had a contestant he was having a good time "messing" with, I bet he'd do it in a second.
The exception is the Showcase round, where he pitches to break saying, "We'll find out which has bid better right after this." Maybe Barker's not as obnoxious or melodramatic about it as Seacrest, Mandell or others, but it's really the same thing.
compdude512 wrote:
THAT is when I threaten to quit watching--when the new host screws the show up so much that it's unbearable to watch.
With all due respect, you're contradicting yourself. You threaten to quit watching "when the new host screws the show up so much?" yet you're saying that you won't watch if certain people get the job...meaning that if they do screw up the show, you won't see it because you wouldn't have given them that chance to start with.
I can understand watching a host, then deciding that you can't watch anymore. I can't understand, if you're open-minded, swearing off the show because you don't like the way a specific person hosts the show when you haven't
seen them host the show at all.
I took a lot of flak on a game show blog just after
1 vs. 100 was announced because I said something negative about that show's choice for host. I don't like Bob Saget. I don't think he's remotely funny. I couldn't stand him on that home video show on ABC. He paused for applause whenever he seemed to think he said something funny, whether the audience agreed or not. And often, it sounded like they didn't. I would never have chosen him as a host. But he's
different on '100.' He's not that annoying persona that I thought was going to be so over the top. He fits the show quite well, much to my surprise.
Granted, I could miss an episode of '100' and never even think about it. It's by no means "appointment TV" for me. But when I think about it, or when I'm flipping through the channels and find it, I watch.
I could have said, (like you're saying you will), that because I dislike Saget's
prior work, there'd be no way I'd watch. I didn't, and I was pleasantly surprised for having done so. He's not my favorite host, and I certainly don't like him enough that I'd want to consider him even for a second as a Barker replacement, but he's fine on his show.
Do whatever you want...I'm just saying that it's a little shortsighted to "vow" never to watch if you're not even going to give the show a chance. After all these years, I'd think the show itself would deserve that much.
