TPIR Poll (?), Best use of what time they have... Options

[clemon79]

"Get ready to match the stars." A short line like that is all you need to get the show started.

Won't that confuse the audience?

/why don't we do the same thing, but with gophers?

[Don Howard]

"Get ready to match the stars." A short line like that is all you need to get the show started.

Absolutely correct. "Here it comes! Television's most exciting hour...." blah blah blah worked for how long on its own? Long, long time.

[Casey Buck]

"Get ready to match the stars." A short line like that is all you need to get the show started.

Absolutely correct. "Here it comes! Television's most exciting hour...." blah blah blah worked for how long on its own? Long, long time.

How about: "Here it comes! From Television City in Hollywood, a fortune in fabulous prizes may go to these people today, if they know when The Price is Right!"?

It's sort of a hybrid of the original half-hour version opening spiel, and the current opening spiel.

[TLEberle]

But I'm not arguing that at all. I'm arguing against your point that solely because of it's age means it's good or somehow worthy of not being retired.

Except I haven't been doing that. I've been refuting your arguments, and waiting for you to come back with some sort of rebuttal. And instead I get ducking, topic changes and rhetorical dodges. It's to the point where I can't follow anything that you're saying, because your posts are all over the place.

Frankly, I still do.

No, you don't have anything won. You coin phrases like "intellectual tap-dancing" that have no meaning at all except to you because you want to appeal against experts. And worse yet is that you close with this:

Either say what you really mean or don't say anything at all.

You should amend that to "Say what you mean, mean what you say, but in my case you must also read my mind."

[CarShark]

But I'm not arguing that at all. I'm arguing against your point that solely because of it's age means it's good or somehow worthy of not being retired.

Except I haven't been doing that. I've been refuting your arguments, and waiting for you to come back with some sort of rebuttal. And instead I get ducking, topic changes and rhetorical dodges. It's to the point where I can't follow anything that you're saying, because your posts are all over the place.

We must not be talking about the same thing, because I couldn't possibly be any more clear than I was just then. You haven't refuted anything. You just made a lame joke.

Getting back to the original point, dropping a game or two to free up time seems to be the best way to balance the time issues with the change in atmosphere to a less stuffy, more modern party-like show. The best way I see to get that is through more contestant interaction, more playings of longer (and often more popular) games and really making the Showcases memorable. I can only hope that someone in charge realizes that The Price Is Right's "history" and "tradition" can be it's biggest asset, but can also be it's biggest liability. How can the show (and its staff) ever move forward if they're preoccupied with looking back?

EDIT-Another good thing could be that with two fewer games to schedule, that might help alleviate some of the pressure the budget is apparently suffering under.

[TLEberle]

We must not be talking about the same thing, because I couldn't possibly be any more clear than I was just then. You haven't refuted anything. You just made a lame joke.

You couldn't possibly make this any easier for me, because you're illustrating my very point by your very lack of rigor. My comment, while made in jest, had a point. Every post of mine in the thread has had a point, even if you want to dismiss it as a "lame joke". (The very fact that you understood and attempted to "refute" my "joke" means it wasn't all that lame at all, because it illustrated my position. You haven't even been able to reliably do that.)

In every response you have posted, you have ducked or dodged those points that were directed squarely at you, which you realized because you replied, and yet you said nothing at all each time. You have at times said nothing, said several things, and simultaneously held conflicting opinions without a care in the world.

Do you actually read anything that someone else posts, or is this just your sandbox for random ramblings? If the latter is true, then stop the ride because I want to get off.

[CarShark]

I've read my posts again. I've read your posts again. I'm not intentionally trying to be obtuse or anything, but it appears that I'm confused as to what you mean. All I'm saying at the end of the day is that:

1) The show would be better with four IUFBs and Pricing Games and one Showdown. (more interaction, better games, feeling less rushed)

2) I haven't decided whether I think one or two Showcases with one or two contestants would be best, but I'm leaning currently towards one and one, because one Showcase is usually not very desirable. I would like the secret bid idea proposed earlier if two contestants with one Showcase was used.

3) I don't think Contestants' Row is as important as you think it is. I think it's just a place where people make their $420s and $69s and $1337s or one dollar over someone else. I think it's a bit stale, in general.

4) IMO, the shorter games on the show are currently used to make sure that six games are played each day. (i.e. if they want to play Plinko and Pocket Change, they're going to need Double Prices and Most Expensive, also)

4a) IF TPIR went to 4 IUFBs and 4 Games they wouldn't need the quicker games as much, if at all.

4b) Even though the quick games may be "the truest tests of pricing skill", as you said, I don't think that the average viewer really gets excited by them. If The Powers That Be think along the same lines, they might think that since they don't need to play short games anymore to fill a six-game line-up, they no longer have an upside, so they'll stop playing them. I also think that if they were to stop playing Double Prices and Most Expensive and all the rest, the average viewer would not react negatively to the change.

5) When I made the "Just because something existed 30 years ago doesn't mean it should still exist now.", I specifically meant that if the show doesn't need to play quick games to stay on schedule, I don't see the harm in not playing them anymore. It may have been considered necessary back in the 70s, and if it isn't now, then age shouldn't be a determining factor in whether they continue to play the game. That's all I meant. This is where the confusion stems from, I believe, because I then (incorrectly) thought that you were saying that the age of a game should determine whether they keep it or not. I do dislike most of the quickies, but I do because they aren't interesting, not because they are old.

5a) Veering slightly off-course, when you made that reference to Logan's Run, I thought you were saying that "CarShark believes that old=bad in all cases all the time", which seemed extreme to me. I don't believe that at all, but I do believe that if you keep too many things the same for too long a time, it can make things feel a bit stale. I don't necessarily like the way Wheel of Fortune has progressed over the years gameplay-wise, but I do like the way they've modernized the set. Video walls, video scoreboards, digital puzzleboard. But the secret is that they did it one piece at a time, so more "conservative" fans didn't get overwhelmed. When urbanpreppie frequently posted here, he mentioned this often, as well. I don't see why TPIR doing the same would hurt it the way more "conservative" fans of the show think it would. In fact, I think it would better attract younger, more casual fans than the current collection of 20-odd-year-old electromechanical technology. During the time that the latest batch of Million Dollar Spectaculars were airing, TheKid over at GSN Boards noted that some of the older games, like Clock Game and Bonus Game didn't look fresh in high-definition. To me, that reflects badly on the show in a way the average viewer actually would notice.

I really hoped this cleared things up, Travis. I don't really understand how our discussion got to the point it has, because it certainly seems that we agree on more than we originally thought. :)