-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Let's Make A Deal
- Thread starter dustintv
- Start date
It is okay. Wayne Brady is a very talented person. Give him time to adjust to the game. And he will do just fine.
TopOfThePops said:
No. Let's not. Wayne was a bad choice for host. One of the runner ups for Price is Right should have been given a chance.
I watched a few minutes of it yesterday (breaking a vow
not to watch it at all) and was bored to death. I'm aware
that Wayne Brady has as big a pair of shoes to fill (Monty
Hall) as Drew Carey did, and maybe he'll find his groove too.
But right now I give LMAD a year at most, then it won't shock
me if CBS turns that timeslot back to the affiliates.
not to watch it at all) and was bored to death. I'm aware
that Wayne Brady has as big a pair of shoes to fill (Monty
Hall) as Drew Carey did, and maybe he'll find his groove too.
But right now I give LMAD a year at most, then it won't shock
me if CBS turns that timeslot back to the affiliates.
How great would it have been if Bob barker was hired to host it? That would have been the next best thing to Monty hall. But I have to say that as much as I like Wayne Brady, this isn't the job for him. I remember the great game show hosts of the past. They seemed like they belonged from day 1. There was no "trying" to get used them. There was no talk about giving a host a year or two and let's see if people accept him. Back then hosts just seemed to be much better at what they did. They didn't seem out of place. These days it seems like the Network will try to force you to like a host who really has no business working there in the first place. That is why so many new game shows fail these days. Wayne Brady was great on Whose Line is it anyway! But he's not the man who should be filling Monty hall's shoes. It's just not working for me.
I
imhomerjay
Guest
DToTheJ said:
Because we all know that time slot and other factors can have no influence on a show's fate, it's all the host.
Skynet74 said:
Why does every new host nowadays have to be a standup comedian? Barker, Hall, Sajak, Trebek, Regis, Meredith...none of them are and they appear to have been born to host these things.
One problem all new hosts have is the lack of an opportunity to learn to ad-lib with total strangers. Barker recalls his days in radio in Springfield, MO; he did a "man on the street" show (common everywhere at the time, and Bill Cullen did one in Pittsburgh as well) where he made off-the-cuff conversation with people he'd never met. But that kind of show is gone, and I wouldn't care to see the confrontational types like Limbaugh fronting Price, Deal, or any other game show.
In 1979 writer Maxene Fabe came out with a book about game shows; in her chapter on "Let's Make A Deal," she said that no one but Monty Hall could host that show. Time has proven her right so far; Bob Hilton and Billy Bush both failed.
And before anyone jumps me, I know "Guiding Light" isn't coming back, but I can hear its viewers saying "I told you so" if "Deal" fails.
imhomerjay said:
True, but I remember the 1990 version of "Deal" with Bob Hilton as host. Granted, NBC stuck it in the 10 AM death trap, but before the show's short life ended, Monty had to return as emcee. There are other examples: Hilton, and Larry Anderson, failed to make people forget Bob Barker on "Truth Or Consequences"; neither Jim Caldwell nor Patrick Wayne could replace Wink Martindale on "Tic Tac Dough"; Robin Ward was no match for either Bud Collyer or Garry Moore on "To Tell The Truth" (neither was Lynn Swann, for that matter); and who remembers Rolf Benirschke as host of "Wheel Of Fortune"? So the host is important--maybe not the only factor in a game show's success, but an important one nonetheless.
M
Mario500
Guest
I'm enjoying the new version of "Let's Make a Deal" so far. It's a nice update and nothing about it bothers me like "The Price is Right" nowadays after most of the changes made since Bob Barker retired. If "The Price is Right" were cancelled and not "The Guiding Light", "Let's Make a Deal" would have been a good replacement.
In the first paragraph you referred to some hosts by only their surname or first name before using both names for Monty Hall and other hosts. I prefer to use both names at all times for the person I'm writing about. Some people may not know you were referring to Rush Limbaugh as one of the "confrontational types".
bpatrick said:
In the first paragraph you referred to some hosts by only their surname or first name before using both names for Monty Hall and other hosts. I prefer to use both names at all times for the person I'm writing about. Some people may not know you were referring to Rush Limbaugh as one of the "confrontational types".
I
imhomerjay
Guest
bpatrick said:
Wink himself couldn't have done anything with that 1990 version of Tic Tac Dough, rapping dragon and all.
That aisde though, there are some interesting, and unknowable questions, to ponder. Would Tic Tac Dough have had a longer continued run if Wink had stayed with the '80s version? It was, after all, already on the downward track. Caldwell, good or bad, wasn't taking over at the height of its popularity.
As another example, look at Family Feud 1994, with the 'legendary' Richard Dawson coming back. Did it die in a year because Dawson was no Ray Combs, or because it was just the show's time to expire (or some of each)?
For sure, a stiff as host will land you in the dustbin quickly, but even when it's the same name of a show, the circumstances of a revival may be quite different (clearances, audience interest in the format in general, etc.), making some of the comparisons of hosts less than clear cut.
Dawson was far more subdued in '94 than he was in
the original incarnation of "Feud." And I will grant that
the 1988-95 version had probably run its course, just as
"Joker's Wild" and "Tic Tac Dough," so popular in the
late '70s/early '80s, fell to the "Wheel"/"Jeopardy!" combo
(and yes, you can argue--and I won't dispute it--that Trebek
has become even more identified with "Jeopardy!" than Art
Fleming was). But how do you explain the fact that the current
version of "Feud" has had three hosts: Louie Anderson, Richard
Karn, and John O'Hurley? Give you another example: a guy named
Don Bleu hosted a late-1980s remake of "The Gong Show." To this
day, that show remains identified with Chuck Barris.
Now to compare Barker (or Drew) with Bill Cullen would not be
comparing apples to apples since "The Price Is Right" bears little
resemblance to the original, Cullen-hosted version (same was true
with Tom Kennedy's version of "Name That Tune" as opposed to
George DeWitt's in the '50s). Each host was right for his version,
however.
One more: Woody Woodbury replaced Johnny Carson on "Who Do
You Trust?" Carson became one of the medium's icons; very few
people know who Woodbury is. And yet, "Who Do You Trust?" kept
the same time slot (3:30 on ABC) and didn't get new competition until
the spring and summer of 1963, when NBC launched "You Don't Say!"
and CBS moved "Edge Of Night" to 3:30. But the handwriting was already
on the wall; viewers never understood Woodbury in his fishing outfit which
he never explained, and were turned off by it, as even he will admit.
Note that I am not saying that the host is a make-or-break factor, but some
do fit a format better than others. I agree with you that there are other
considerations, but when you have a known quantity like "Let's Make A Deal,"
and a host who's never worked the format, you (or at least I) have to say,
I'm from Missouri, show me. (I'm sure I'd be hearing from the skeptics if
I were hosting the show.) But I suppose that's just me.
BTW, what do you think of Wayne Brady as host of "Deal"?
Aside to Mario500: I don't mean to apologize for the inconsistencies, but I
think everyone who comes to this site has more than a passing interest
in radio and television, and knows who Limbaugh is, and certainly
there is only one Regis in most people's minds, just as there's only one Vanna,
or one Oprah. And how many people do you know whose last name is Sajak
or Trebek? OTOH, Bob is so generic (it's my name) that I could be talking
about Bob Eubanks (I might have gotten away with Monty for Monty Hall, and
probably should use both names for the benefit of those who don't remember
him). I just think it makes for easier identification. Unless the reader is totally
unfamiliar with game shows, the names should ring a bell.
If you choose to use both names, that's your right, but I think enough
people know these names as I've given them. But if it's a problem for others,
if they'll let me know, I'm flexible enough to change the practice.
the original incarnation of "Feud." And I will grant that
the 1988-95 version had probably run its course, just as
"Joker's Wild" and "Tic Tac Dough," so popular in the
late '70s/early '80s, fell to the "Wheel"/"Jeopardy!" combo
(and yes, you can argue--and I won't dispute it--that Trebek
has become even more identified with "Jeopardy!" than Art
Fleming was). But how do you explain the fact that the current
version of "Feud" has had three hosts: Louie Anderson, Richard
Karn, and John O'Hurley? Give you another example: a guy named
Don Bleu hosted a late-1980s remake of "The Gong Show." To this
day, that show remains identified with Chuck Barris.
Now to compare Barker (or Drew) with Bill Cullen would not be
comparing apples to apples since "The Price Is Right" bears little
resemblance to the original, Cullen-hosted version (same was true
with Tom Kennedy's version of "Name That Tune" as opposed to
George DeWitt's in the '50s). Each host was right for his version,
however.
One more: Woody Woodbury replaced Johnny Carson on "Who Do
You Trust?" Carson became one of the medium's icons; very few
people know who Woodbury is. And yet, "Who Do You Trust?" kept
the same time slot (3:30 on ABC) and didn't get new competition until
the spring and summer of 1963, when NBC launched "You Don't Say!"
and CBS moved "Edge Of Night" to 3:30. But the handwriting was already
on the wall; viewers never understood Woodbury in his fishing outfit which
he never explained, and were turned off by it, as even he will admit.
Note that I am not saying that the host is a make-or-break factor, but some
do fit a format better than others. I agree with you that there are other
considerations, but when you have a known quantity like "Let's Make A Deal,"
and a host who's never worked the format, you (or at least I) have to say,
I'm from Missouri, show me. (I'm sure I'd be hearing from the skeptics if
I were hosting the show.) But I suppose that's just me.
BTW, what do you think of Wayne Brady as host of "Deal"?
Aside to Mario500: I don't mean to apologize for the inconsistencies, but I
think everyone who comes to this site has more than a passing interest
in radio and television, and knows who Limbaugh is, and certainly
there is only one Regis in most people's minds, just as there's only one Vanna,
or one Oprah. And how many people do you know whose last name is Sajak
or Trebek? OTOH, Bob is so generic (it's my name) that I could be talking
about Bob Eubanks (I might have gotten away with Monty for Monty Hall, and
probably should use both names for the benefit of those who don't remember
him). I just think it makes for easier identification. Unless the reader is totally
unfamiliar with game shows, the names should ring a bell.
If you choose to use both names, that's your right, but I think enough
people know these names as I've given them. But if it's a problem for others,
if they'll let me know, I'm flexible enough to change the practice.
I watched the first half-hour on Monday, and I have to say in its current form, I can't see how this show could succeed as a hour show. Maybe CBS should went ahead and made the Pyramid revival a reality, and made LMAD a half-hour program.
ShawnHill1 said:
I agree with this. If one was bad at least you still had a 50/50 chance at keeping one of them. But now if Let's Make A Deal fails, CBS has got nothing. Sometimes the people here have better ideas than the network. Not only may the show fail, but I think on this one the network failed.
I
imhomerjay
Guest
My opinion of Wayne Brady is that he's quite well suited for "Deal." Though never a big fan of the show (I just don't like the costumes element, but get that it goes with Deal), it looks to me like they did a good job updating it while keeping the show's classic elements (and I'm not going to quibble over whether one person gets to play the big deal or two). It drags a bit at an hour, but it's still week one.
As for the current Feud, I'm not sure what's being asked for by way of explanation, honestly. It would seem the format has been durable--in fact, running longer than either previous version--and holds up through some very different styles of hosting. Based on the life expectancy of most TV shows, it's likely closer to the end of its run than the beginning, but that isn't because John O'Hurley took over as host a couple of seasons ago.
As for the current Feud, I'm not sure what's being asked for by way of explanation, honestly. It would seem the format has been durable--in fact, running longer than either previous version--and holds up through some very different styles of hosting. Based on the life expectancy of most TV shows, it's likely closer to the end of its run than the beginning, but that isn't because John O'Hurley took over as host a couple of seasons ago.
I don't like Brady as host of Deal and I don't like O'Hurley as host of Feud. I think they were two odd choices. I thought Richard Karn was doing a fine job hosting Feud. I would have kept him. I most likely wouldn't have hired Brady in the first place. I can think of other people who would have been a lot better in that job. I know Howie Mandel already has a show, but I bet he would be a killer host for Let's Make A Deal. Tom Bergeron would have been good too. There are many others who would have done great. So far I'm not impressed with what I see. Not at all. It's very mediocre. Probably not good enough to last for long. Just my opinion.
- Status