Syndie “Deal” Plans Couples Edition and Scraps Episodes
We’ve already went through several reports of Deal or No Deal scrapping episodes that NBC and Endemol do not deem exciting or fun enough to put on the air. If you’re a fan of their persistence in not showing what the game is really like, you’ll be happy (?). Syndicated Deal or No Deal will be doing a few couples editions. One of which is a newlywed game. During the game, the first 10 cases selected were all high values. Far too early in the game, they were left with a top dollar value of $500. What the producers decided to do was stop tape, give the couple $500, tell them to get the hell off the stage, and restart the game with a new couple.
Endemol and NBC do this far too often for my liking. They are doing nothing wrong really, I understand that. If they are giving the couple the highest dollar value up there, it’s basically all fair. However it really misrepresents the game. You can’t stop tape on every crappy game. It’s a game of total chance; have to air some of them occasionally. I wonder what their threshold of failure is. In what way does a person have to bomb in order for them to air it? It’s basically been driven into my mind at this point that Endemol doesn’t make game shows. Endemol makes semi unscripted dramas.
Primetime Deal or No Deal starts taping tomorrow. Thursday’s taping will be a family edition, and they are allowing eight year olds to be in the audience and ask their fathers why they are getting so excited when the models come out.
I, for one, think that this was a great idea. I’m probably the only one that does, though. There have been more than 20 instances on the NBC primetime version of DoND where people ended up winning less than $100 through their own bad decisions. Who could forget the imbecile that won a penny? If it were me in charge, I would have never let any of those episodes air. In fact, I would have burned the tapes as well, and given each of those people $1,000. Do you call someone winning a dollar or a cent good television? I most certainly do not. And yet, they still let those episodes air for reasons beyond my contemplation. I watch game shows to see people win big, not go broke. If were the producer of DoND and I saw that a game was going down the tubes really fast, then I too would have stopped tape, given the player the highest remaining dollar amount as compensation, and started anew. Why they never did this on the primetime version is beyond me, but if they had, we would have never seen any of those God-awful shows where people won less than an day’s pay. In addition, they could have prevented us from seeing people make complete idiots of themselves on national television by winning next to nothing. Why they never did that there and decided to do that here is anyone’s guess.
Rant over.
There are fundamental flaws with your reasoning Mark.
1. It makes for pretty predictable mundane episodes.
Why would I want to watch a episode of Deal Or No Deal if I essentially know that a contestant will do well. This is one of the reason why I don’t watch as often anymore. Every time that I’ve watched it this season almost every contestant (I’d say around 75%) have walked away with around $100,000 or more. That isn’t entertaining that’s boring.
2. Sometimes it’s more entertaining to watch contestants lose.
It’s a shame that we’ll never see that couples episodes because I’d love to see their reactions. Picking the top cases back to back is unheard of and I’m sure there was a big fight in the parking lot when all was said and done.
Also imagine watching the price is right. Imagine every time a contestant loses they decide to cut that out of the show. It would be painful to watch. Why not just give the prizes away or in Deal Or No Deals case why don’t they just give the money away. What’s the point in watching a game show if we can’t see a person fall flat on their face? This is what put Japanese game shows on the map.
3. It’s unethical.
There are certain expectations a contestant has when they are “asked” to be on a game show (with the exception of a pilot). (1) is that the rules are fair (2) is that there is no cheating (both of the contestant and shows part) (3) That when finished they can see themselves on TV and more importantly….(4) That they get paid.
I know if I was going on a TV show I’d tell everybody on Earth that I was going on so when the producers say you suck, that is a tremendous blow. Not only did you did bad on the game but you are not even air worthy. Then what’s the point in even going on? If I found out that was going to happen I wouldn’t even show up on the set. Once again, What’s the point?
4. It gives the illusion that if you go on, you will do well.
Once again with so many people winning on the episodes and most people not knowing deal or no deal’s (Endenmol’s) practices, you give the average contestant high expectations that he/she will do well which is also unethical.
Also Mark if you don’t believe that losing makes for good TV watch this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcXwLuZDcdM
My guess is it’s probably a good business decision to stop tape and give the couple the highest amount. Let’s say it costs them $2,000 a minute to tape an episode (I’m guessing here) and if you have 5 minutes left in the show and $500 is the highest value, it’s cheaper to stop tape and give them the $500. Sure they’ve already spent $ by playing the game, but if it’s boring they are guessing people will change the channel. While somewhat “planned out” and kinda cheap, I guess I understand why.
Didn’t DoND do this with at least one nighttime contestant? I believe LeAnn Rimes was brought out as a celebrity guest for said contestant.
I’m kind of mixed on this. From a business standpoint, I can understand DB25′s argument that the shows fears viewers will walk away if a dull game is played (particularly if, say, the entire right side of the board is wiped out in one fell swoop).
But, at the same time, it is interesting to see contestants react when they are in such a situation. Do you remain enthusiastic about playing? Do you just go through the motions?
I’m curious what the contestants in question think of the show’s decision not to air them. Did they know this was a possibility ahead of time? Are they happy they at least got a few bucks for their troubles?
well, I remember a ngihtime show where the contestant had eliminated the entire right side of the board after the 3 cases round (I think that round), the hghest amount left was $750, and they went through the rest of the game (albeit at a MUCH faster than normal) and her and Howie just played up the comedy which actually made that a really fun game.
in my mind, what Endemolis doing is borderline rigging, albeit, thiese cases were obvously not planned and the contestants are still getting their winnings, but that’s life you’re gonna have some boring games every now and then. WWTBAM for instance, had tons and sitcoms even occasioanlly have eps. that bomb. it’s like their being little kids calling for a “do-over” becuase things didn’t go how they wanted.
I agree with Marc, they should just speed up the rest of the game. They could probably finish it in under 2 minutes if they just asked the person to choose their remaining cases quickly, no need to tell us what the banker would have given them. Or they could just ask them to open their own case right away, since it would be a low amount anyway…
Here’s a simple answer to their little scrapping games problem:
BRING IN SMARTER PEOPLE!!!. Being a glorified cheerleader does NOT get you anywhere. That’s why I stopped watching. I don’t root for these people. I don’t root for people who seem like they’ve had way too much caffeine. You want to improve the ratings? Bring in contestants who know just what the **** they’re doing.
Forget the personality bulls***. That gets you nowhere in game shows and in life. You want to win? HAVE A BRAIN…AND FOR ONCE IN YOUR LIVES, USE IT!
Rant over. NBC and Endemol win my “Go F*** Yourself” award for today.
I also think that this is considered rigging…it’s like the original “21″ and Dotto…they brought on the game show scandals when people realized that the answers were given to them…and, while there is no Q&A on DOND, giving away the highest amount and telling the contestant(s) to get off the stage is (in my opinion) the same thing.
Think about it…people come on these shows for more than one reason…while getting a lot of money is great…they also come on for the risk of the game.
Hey, if getting a big amount was guaranteed, I’d be on the first flight to Vegas.
I have long considered a special rule for situations like this. Once the right side of the board is cleared at any point, game over, contestant wins the top amount that remains on the left side. That may be essentially what they do now, but if you make that a formal, known “rule”, Howie can play up the tension in those games that are going bad, and when the big values are gone, then aw shucks, here’s your money, bring on the next contestant. That would be the honorable way to do things, without locking the show into playing out an entire bad game on tape. And it would reflect “reality” in an era of reality games — imagine that!
I sincerely hate NBC for being picky about what episodes of DoND they air. Is it any wonder why I’m starting to now hate NBC? Las Vegas ends with a “To Be Continued”, 1 vs. 100, despite good ratings, is nothing but a sacrifical lamb to NBC, and now NBC is picky about what episodes they air. No wonder NBC is now in 4th.
Regarding Measles’ post, there is zero brain power on display in playing Deal. That’s the reason I bored with it so quickly–there’s absolutely no skill to it. I’m fine with luck playing a part in a game, but for me, and just me maybe, I like there to be some element of thought, be it solving a word puzzle, thinking about how people answer a survey question, estimating the price of an object or answering trivia.
First: There is zero brain power required. Therefore, there is zero brain power shown. You remember the people who claim the $1,000,000 case is theirs without thinking that that means risking their family futures, and then quit for that reason?
Second: You didn’t scrap Heather McKee’s episode. Why remove this one?
Third: I don’t think Heather is an imbecile when the majority of the difference between $207,000 and one cent ($161,999.99 or 78.26%) was lost by a freak round 5 ($1M and $1M) with a 3.57% probability.
That’s the thing about TV nowadays…they try too hard to be TOO polished, and TOO perfect. Somehow this reminds me of wrestling becoming “sports entertainment” now.
This isn’t on anything like the level of 21 and Dotto, or even the phone-in scandals I’ve written about for this site. But it’s bad alright.
The only thing that made Heather an imbecile was turning down an above-mean $5500 final offer. Even then, a lot of people would unthinkingly do that anyway. I’d have gone at $207,000, but probably a majority wouldn’t. As for most episodes producing six-figure wins – that’s down to the Mission isn’t it? Everyone plays until there’s one $1m case left (or so it seems) so everyone ends up with a six-figure Deal (nobody’s left two millions at the end, somehow).
To those who don’t think there isn’t any intelligence required to win on this show, go ahead, go on, and enjoy looking like a damn fool, I’ll be the first in line to laugh in your face. You have to have the brains to know when to quit and when to take your chances. You’ve got to have a strategy and stick to it. These people on DoND just seem to pick blindly without any sense of what they’re doing…and you wonder why they’re scrapping shows and sending them home? I personally would rather see them play to the end and be embarassed, but that’s another point for another time.
It’s a shame that all the new game shows don’t seem to care about people knowing what they’re doing, as long as they’re OD’d on caffeine and/or drugs. Know what? Let’s just put a “Dumb People Encouraged” label on all these shows and just water the whole damn concept down entirely.
Rant over. Many more rants to come, probably. Enjoy my lunatic-ism :P
You know, the $5,500 final offer down to a penny may have not been a good idea overall, but it’s only 2.65% of the total loss that she suffered.
Criticizing someone for going too far at a low level of money can’t make sense when they have already lost a whole lot of money earlier. Because then why are you not attacking that loss instead?
People who think that a normally bad deal is justified because you cannot argue with winning $280,000 fail to spot that you could not argue with taking the offers before either.
I guess we need to eliminate the appearance of every Millionaire contestant who bombs out on the first five questions, and leaves with nothing.
Give me a break Endemol. Either show the damn contestants or get out of the game show business. It’s bad enough other shows want to follow your crappy model of game show production (obnoxious contestants, peanut gallery members who don’t shut up, pregnant pauses to simple questions), now you want to get cut-happy. You win some, you lose some, that’s what makes this a game of chance.