Golden-Road.net
Studio 33 - Price is Right Discussion => The TALK Is Right => Topic started by: Redhard on October 18, 2019, 07:31:11 PM
-
When the show came on in 1956, as a kid, me and my family would be huddled around the TV set and eagerly listened to the contestants bid auction style on prizes (with outlandish bonuses usually attached). Nowadays, it is a shadow of what the show previously is. I was disappointed at the new format in 1972 and it has become worse ever since.
The auction format give contestants multiple chances to bid on the same item and they had to be a distance apart. Now, it's one bid only and contestants can cheat each other out by 1 dollar. The prizes there aren't even as expensive as the ones that were auctioned off in the old days.
Outlandish bonuses would usually accompany the prizes in the 50's and 60's. Now, you have to play games that ripped off of let's make a deal just to win an item that are sometimes cheaper than the ones that were shown in the 50's and 60's. It's not that excited to see a chip hit the 10,000 cash prize when businesses were previously given out after just bidding back in the 50's and 60's. Don't get me started on "the big wheel" which is more luck than knowledge and skill and one that goes against bob Stewart's wishes. Finally, the showcase round should be reserved only for home viewers.
In post my thoughts here as I was a huge fan of the bill cullen price is right era and the simple gameplay yet engaging made that shown so fun. I wish the new price is right had that same excitement but after nearly 50 years, I still have come to dislike the new format where luck is a huge factor along with cheating and too many influences from other great gameshow like wheel of fortune and let's make a deal
-
Cullen Price and New Price are certainly two different beasts. I certainly understand nitpicking that the auction format is severely different from what we have now.
However, I don't feel that calling all the pricing games "ripped off of let's make a deal". The pricing games certainly have more depth and variety than simply "Pick the one item out of these three that's less than $2". Just because Let's Make a Deal dealt with grocery products or small prizes before the inception of New Price doesn't necessarily mean that the current game is a rip-off.
"Don't get me started on "the big wheel" which is more luck than knowledge and skill and one that goes against bob Stewart's wishes." That's a common argument around here relating to the individual pricing games. My rebuttal would be that the audience of nowadays has different interests and priorities than those in the 50s and 60s- the goal of the Pricing Games or Showcase Showdown ultimately isn't to get the smartest shopper into the Bonus Round, but to provide entertainment for advertiser money.
"Finally, the showcase round should be reserved only for home viewers." Can you expand on this? The current Showcase round is probably one of the most "fair" elements of the current show.
"where luck is a huge factor along with cheating and too many influences from other great gameshow like wheel of fortune and let's make a deal"
I can see the argument for some influence from Wheel and LMAD, but just because something works doesn't mean that it is bad to reform the idea to fit your show. However, can you expand on "cheating" being "a huge factor"? I thought part of the reason why Cullen Price got so popular later on was because it survived the quiz show scandals of the 50s. It would be hypocritical and illegal to have New Price change that philosophy.
-
Cullen Price and New Price are certainly two different beasts. I certainly understand nitpicking that the auction format is severely different from what we have now.
However, I don't feel that calling all the pricing games "ripped off of let's make a deal". The pricing games certainly have more depth and variety than simply "Pick the one item out of these three that's less than $2". Just because Let's Make a Deal dealt with grocery products or small prizes before the inception of New Price doesn't necessarily mean that the current game is a rip-off.
"Don't get me started on "the big wheel" which is more luck than knowledge and skill and one that goes against bob Stewart's wishes." That's a common argument around here relating to the individual pricing games. My rebuttal would be that the audience of nowadays has different interests and priorities than those in the 50s and 60s- the goal of the Pricing Games or Showcase Showdown ultimately isn't to get the smartest shopper into the Bonus Round, but to provide entertainment for advertiser money.
"Finally, the showcase round should be reserved only for home viewers." Can you expand on this? The current Showcase round is probably one of the most "fair" elements of the current show.
"where luck is a huge factor along with cheating and too many influences from other great gameshow like wheel of fortune and let's make a deal"
I can see the argument for some influence from Wheel and LMAD, but just because something works doesn't mean that it is bad to reform the idea to fit your show. However, can you expand on "cheating" being "a huge factor"? I thought part of the reason why Cullen Price got so popular later on was because it survived the quiz show scandals of the 50s. It would be hypocritical and illegal to have New Price change that philosophy.
This may not have been as big of a disappointment had they changed the title of the show to "Come on Down" or something else. To expand on the showcase idea, the idea of the showcase is to get home viewers to do their knowledge. Having them on the show made it too much of a guessing game since there was no time to think about the value of the prices. Also, there are 2 different showcases where as the original format allowed only one showcase and gave everyone a fair chance.
And when I mean cheating, I mean bidding one dollar over the next contestant.
-
And when I mean cheating, I mean bidding one dollar over the next contestant.
I don't agree with a lot of this but....I always did feel a $5 spread may not have been worst idea for one bids. I never was a big fan of that one dollar over thing either.
-
I honestly thought this post was a parody of how some fans who grew up with Bob's show view the Drew era, showing how hating when things change is nothing new.
-
Don't get me started on "the big wheel" which is more luck than knowledge and skill
Before the show went to an hour, and before the big wheel came into being, there was still an element of luck in determining who got into the Showcase.
On the surface, it's a no-brainer that the top two winners went on to the Showcase. However, contestants winning their way on stage have no say in what pricing games they're going to play or the top value of the prize they're playing for. So, if all three contestants won the maximum amount of prizes they could win in their assigned pricing games - if the 1st game was worth $2000, the 2nd $6000 and the 3rd $5000, the contestant who played the first game was eliminated through no fault of his own, even though he did everything right (that is, win all the prizes he had a chance to win), because he had the bad luck to play the pricing game that awarded the lowest dollar-value amount of prizes that day.
-
Before the show went to an hour, and before the big wheel came into being, there was still an element of luck in determining who got into the Showcase.
On the surface, it's a no-brainer that the top two winners went on to the Showcase. However, contestants winning their way on stage have no say in what pricing games they're going to play or the top value of the prize they're playing for. So, if all three contestants won the maximum amount of prizes they could win in their assigned pricing games - if the 1st game was worth $2000, the 2nd $6000 and the 3rd $5000, the contestant who played the first game was eliminated through no fault of his own, even though he did everything right (that is, win all the prizes he had a chance to win), because he had the bad luck to play the pricing game that awarded the lowest dollar-value amount of prizes that day.
It's interesting in a way that the show left it that way for 3 years. You'd almost think they'd devise something that would be fair in case of situations like that let's say, or even just fair in general (ie: drawing straws or something off camera before the Showcases). But c'est la vie.
-
I honestly thought this post was a parody of how some fans who grew up with Bob's show view the Drew era, showing how hating when things change is nothing new.
Bob at least did the best he could given the circumstances. Never was a fan of drew.
-
Before the show went to an hour, and before the big wheel came into being, there was still an element of luck in determining who got into the Showcase.
On the surface, it's a no-brainer that the top two winners went on to the Showcase. However, contestants winning their way on stage have no say in what pricing games they're going to play or the top value of the prize they're playing for. So, if all three contestants won the maximum amount of prizes they could win in their assigned pricing games - if the 1st game was worth $2000, the 2nd $6000 and the 3rd $5000, the contestant who played the first game was eliminated through no fault of his own, even though he did everything right (that is, win all the prizes he had a chance to win), because he had the bad luck to play the pricing game that awarded the lowest dollar-value amount of prizes that day.
The whole format was unfair back in 1972 and is still unfair even today.
-
One thing I also miss is bill cullen demonstrating the products as commercials. Now, the announcer just gives a weak description of groceries
-
The whole format was unfair back in 1972 and is still unfair even today.
"Fairness" isn't the primary goal in creating a game show. Every game involves some degree of luck, even Jeopardy!--not just in the Daily Doubles, but just the general luck of the draw--many otherwise-intelligent people have lost because the categories on their episode just happened to fall into their knowledge blindspots.
So no, it's not fair that people lose due to someone bidding $1 higher, or that someone can win their pricing game and not participate in the Showcase due to luck of the draw. But...it doesn't need to be fair. The fact that the show exists, and gives ordinary people a chance to be on TV and win prizes without actually risking anything of their own is enough.
-
And when I mean cheating, I mean bidding one dollar over the next contestant.
Yeah, that's not cheating.
I'd also love to find that time travel machine you've seemed to pop out from after the last 50 years.
-
One thing I also miss is bill cullen demonstrating the products as commercials. Now, the announcer just gives a weak description of groceries
Does anyone do that on TV today? Why should they do it on Price?
I'd also love to find that time travel machine you've seemed to pop out from after the last 50 years.
I'm starting to think Redhard is a troll.
-
"Fairness" isn't the primary goal in creating a game show. Every game involves some degree of luck, even Jeopardy!--not just in the Daily Doubles, but just the general luck of the draw--many otherwise-intelligent people have lost because the categories on their episode just happened to fall into their knowledge blindspots.
So no, it's not fair that people lose due to someone bidding $1 higher, or that someone can win their pricing game and not participate in the Showcase due to luck of the draw. But...it doesn't need to be fair. The fact that the show exists, and gives ordinary people a chance to be on TV and win prizes without actually risking anything of their own is enough.
The problem is that this show takes its name from a game show that gives people a fair chance. If they changed the name, I wouldn't have an issue with it
-
Yeah, that's not cheating.
I'd also love to find that time travel machine you've seemed to pop out from after the last 50 years.
Just because its allowed doesn't mean it ain't cheating. At least seperate the bids by a few more dollars.
And I remember the cullen episodes fondly and am currently watching them on buzzr as well.
-
Does anyone do that on TV today? Why should they do it on Price?
I'm starting to think Redhard is a troll.
Having a different opinion than you does not mean I am trolling. Maybe the commercial thing is unrealistic today
-
Having a different opinion than you does not mean I am trolling.
You're entitled to your opinion. It's very much a minority opinion--as evidenced by the fact that the current TPiR has lasted more than five times as long as the original--but you're allowed to dislike the Barker/Carey version.
That said...why not just ignore it? As you said, the Cullen era is now being rerun on Buzzr, so there's plenty of opportunity to get your fix and relive the show as you remember it. No one's forcing you to watch the current version...right?
-
Having a different opinion than you does not mean I am trolling. Maybe the commercial thing is unrealistic today
My problem isn't that you have a "different opinion" than me. My problem is that you're coming onto a fan board dedicated primarily to the current version of the show...and bashing everything about the current version of the show.
Another user was recently banned for doing exactly that--every single post they made was complaining about the show, which by their own admission they didn't even watch. The posts became increasingly combative and nonsensical. It added nothing to the site and was, frankly, annoying.
And SamJ93 is exactly right--if you hate it so much, why not just ignore it and enjoy the reruns on Buzzr? You're not going to convince this board to share your opinion...and when your starting position is that the IUFB rules allow cheating, or that they should bring back practices from the 1950s like in-show commercials, you're rightly going to get called out on how unrealistic and completely out of step you are with the realities of daytime TV in 2019.
-
My problem isn't that you have a "different opinion" than me. My problem is that you're coming onto a fan board dedicated primarily to the current version of the show...and bashing everything about the current version of the show.
Another user was recently banned for doing exactly that--every single post they made was complaining about the show, which by their own admission they didn't even watch. The posts became increasingly combative and nonsensical. It added nothing to the site and was, frankly, annoying.
And SamJ93 is exactly right--if you hate it so much, why not just ignore it and enjoy the reruns on Buzzr? You're not going to convince this board to share your opinion...and when your starting position is that the IUFB rules allow cheating, or that they should bring back practices from the 1950s like in-show commercials, you're rightly going to get called out on how unrealistic and completely out of step you are with the realities of daytime TV in 2019.
This is a board about price is right. Talking about all versions is welcome. And I never said you had to agree. I do watch the reruns and I want to very much talk about how that version is better than the newer versions.
-
You're entitled to your opinion. It's very much a minority opinion--as evidenced by the fact that the current TPiR has lasted more than five times as long as the original--but you're allowed to dislike the Barker/Carey version.
That said...why not just ignore it? As you said, the Cullen era is now being rerun on Buzzr, so there's plenty of opportunity to get your fix and relive the show as you remember it. No one's forcing you to watch the current version...right?
I haven't watched the current version ever since reruns of the original appeared. That doesn't mean I can't talk about why I prefer the original.
-
To be honest, I'm completely fine with the opinion that Cullen Price is better than New Price. You are allowed to call out the current version for being more luck based than the 50s run. If you are willing to debate gracefully that it should be part of the show, then that's up to you. You are allowed to say that the prizes given nowadays are cheaper and less varied than back then. If you are willing to debate gracefully that more varied prizes would better benefit the show, when society in general has become more utilitarian, have at it. In addition, I personally would argue that comparing the nighttime run of Cullen Price isn't a fair comparison to the daytime run of New Price; the more outlandish prizes would have appeared on the nighttime run rather than the daytime run. You are allowed to not like the current version of the One Bid. However, calling it cheating would be similar to saying that winning the Prize Puzzle is cheating on Wheel, just because its existence creates flaw within the game. It is allowed by the rules; thus, it isn't cheating. Whether or not it is a "right" thing to do, on the other hand, is certainly up for debate.
If you want to hold onto those views, that is completely fine. You will be in a very small majority. Just make sure that you don't needlessly hijack threads, saying "Oh, if Cullen were hosting, the abomination known as Drew wouldn't have made the show unwatchable." I'm not saying that to be mean, but I've seen that view expressed time and time again with Barker, and personally, that discussion ends up going nowhere.
-
Just because its allowed doesn't mean it ain't cheating.
It’s actually exactly what it means.
-
To be honest, I'm completely fine with the opinion that Cullen Price is better than New Price. You are allowed to call out the current version for being more luck based than the 50s run. If you are willing to debate gracefully that it should be part of the show, then that's up to you. You are allowed to say that the prizes given nowadays are cheaper and less varied than back then. If you are willing to debate gracefully that more varied prizes would better benefit the show, when society in general has become more utilitarian, have at it. In addition, I personally would argue that comparing the nighttime run of Cullen Price isn't a fair comparison to the daytime run of New Price; the more outlandish prizes would have appeared on the nighttime run rather than the daytime run. You are allowed to not like the current version of the One Bid. However, calling it cheating would be similar to saying that winning the Prize Puzzle is cheating on Wheel, just because its existence creates flaw within the game. It is allowed by the rules; thus, it isn't cheating. Whether or not it is a "right" thing to do, on the other hand, is certainly up for debate.
If you want to hold onto those views, that is completely fine. You will be in a very small majority. Just make sure that you don't needlessly hijack threads, saying "Oh, if Cullen were hosting, the abomination known as Drew wouldn't have made the show unwatchable." I'm not saying that to be mean, but I've seen that view expressed time and time again with Barker, and personally, that discussion ends up going nowhere.
I hate the prize puzzle but it's a feature form the staff, not a contestant method. And even the primetime price is right from the 70s, 80s, and 90's all sucked compared to Mullen's run
-
Okay, this is getting stupid.
This site is obviously focused primarily on the current version of The Price Is Right. Coming on here on your first day as a member and trashing the entire run of the show is either trolling or idiotic.
Either way, this conversation's over, and Redhard won't be starting another one.