• 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

Primetime "Millionaire" isn't exactly off to a rousing start

B

bpatrick

I see on Steve Beverly's blog that ABC's 10th-anniversary
primetime "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire" is pulling about
half the audience of the original; about seven million viewers
a night as opposed to fifteen million at the same point in 1999.

Beverly has been unhappy with two things, and I agree with
him: first, the questions have been too oriented toward pop
culture, which puts the older contestants at a disadvantage
(but a younger one nearly missed the $100 question because
he couldn't recall the lyrics to "America the Beautiful"); second,
the use of celebrities, he feels, is unnecessary--case in point,
he says, is singer Katy Perry Sunday night. She acted like she
didn't know where she was or what she was supposed to do,
and had already decided to phone a friend before the question
was even asked (she got it right but she doesn't strike me as
a rocket scientist either).

He does say that Regis is as good as ever (true), but that as
good as Meredith is, it'll always be Reege's show.

Beverly also mentions Tim Brando's radio show on which Brando,
who nearly got the hosting job on network "Wheel Of Fortune"
in 1989 when Pat Sajak started his short-lived talk show, expressed
the opinion that only Regis and Tom Bergeron, among active hosts
who have come along since Sajak and Trebek, know how to make
the game the star and themselves secondary. He thinks Drew Carey
tries to overshadow the contestants and pricing games on "TPIR,"
but that some producer--noting Howie Mandel's success on "Deal Or
No Deal"--decided that "Price" had to replace Bob Barker with an actor.
Once one gets past Regis and Tom, he says, there are no Cullens, Barkers,
Rayburns, Kennedys, Narzes (is that right?), Martindales, Luddens, or
Marshalls out there.

Thoughts either about "Millionaire" or Brando's rant about the lack of
good hosts?
 
Regis is a breath of fresh air for Millionaire. The lack of ratings is not surprising, though.

I feel Howie and Drew are respectable game show hosts. I'm not sure the game is supposed to be the star any more.
 
I just think that Television in general is not getting the viewers that it once was. The internet has taken away from TV. Now people just spend their nights in front of the computer instead. I realize that this was happening 10 years ago as well. But now it's happening even more! I had planned on watching prime time Millionaire when I heard that it was going to be on. But then I ended up forgetting all about it. I was probably on the internet. SEE what I mean . lol
 
We idolize Cullen or Narz or Kennedy and so forth as if they came out of some magical "Game Show Host" course of study at Quiz Show University. They applied their communications skills from other genres and outlets to game shows--each one starting out somewhere. Even Barker was a newbie at one point. It's not that different from Drew or Howie--they're entertainers. Some will inevitably do better in certain settings than others, but just because someone hasn't done it before doesn't mean they won't do it well. Pat Sajak is still on game show number one (practically speaking). Some might say he's done OK.

Personally, I'm enjoying the revival of Millionaire, and have no expectations it will be anything more than a one-time deal. The ratings may be disappointing to ABC, and so be it. For 2009 and a network that's setting record lows this summer, I'm not terribly surprised at what's happened.
 
I'm not surprised Millionaire is getting low ratings in primetime. Now, if the daytime series did not exist, and this was the first time Millionaire had been seen for the past ten years, then maybe it would pull higher ratings. But the show is old hat by now because of the daytime series. Only the host has changed. The celebrity stuff is just annoying.
 
We actually have a family friend from Tennessee, who has a PhD in physics, tried out for the Millionaire 10th anniversary show. He got past the first round, but ultimately was not selected. He was certain he would get chosen. He might have been too smart for the show.
 
Well Howie has a good sense of humor. He seems to make the contestants feel at ease. I personally like him. Don't know who you would think would be a better host for that show. But I'm happy with who they hired.
 
Skynet74 said:
I just think that Television in general is not getting the viewers that it once was. The internet has taken away from TV. Now people just spend their nights in front of the computer instead.
Click to expand...

Or as in the words of actors Seth Rogen and Jonah Hill "I don't do TV". To be anti-TV/radio is more/less the in "thing" now. Check out online singer Madonna's opinions of television & radio and the "rules" she uses in reguards to TV & radio towards her own kids. Anyway there is no shortage of people out there who for one reason or another do NOT watch TV nor listen to the radio. Its a shame people in business don't know this. Or if they did, its something they "overlook", chances are on purpose.
 
I've been watching these shows, and something does seem to be missing, although I can't put my finger on it.

My guess, however, is it is always hard to re-create something that was hugely successful. The other thing I notice is because of the 10-day format, the contestants seems to be moving through almost like an assembly line. With the old show, there was more of an ability to "time" the contestants and build up interest. Day after day for 10 days makes it more like a typical syndicated daytime show. Regis is good, but it just doesn't seem the same. And I will agree with others, the celebrity charity bit loses me. The show needs to end with drama, not "throw-away".
 
They're using celebrities again? I sure won't be watching. That's what killed them after 9/11.

The other problem is that 10 years ago, winning a million dollars on TV was a huge thing - it was new and different. We were used to much smaller prizes on Jeopardy! and Wheel of Fortune, and even smaller prizes on some other shows. How many other shows have come out since then that offer a prize of $1,000,000? First there were the copycats on the other networks including NBC's 21 revival, FOX's Greed, and CBS's woefully bad Winning Lines. More recently there have been TPIR Million Dollar Spectaculars, and DoND. Winning $1,000,000 on TV is too generic today, it doesn't have the impact it did in 1999. Additionally that much money is less valuable today because of inflation.
 
bpatrick said:
Beverly also mentions Tim Brando's radio show on which Brando,
who nearly got the hosting job on network "Wheel Of Fortune"
in 1989 when Pat Sajak started his short-lived talk show, expressed
the opinion that only Regis and Tom Bergeron, among active hosts
who have come along since Sajak and Trebek, know how to make
the game the star and themselves secondary. He thinks Drew Carey
tries to overshadow the contestants and pricing games on "TPIR,"
but that some producer--noting Howie Mandel's success on "Deal Or
No Deal"--decided that "Price" had to replace Bob Barker with an actor.
Once one gets past Regis and Tom, he says, there are no Cullens, Barkers,
Rayburns, Kennedys, Narzes (is that right?), Martindales, Luddens, or
Marshalls out there.

Thoughts either about "Millionaire" or Brando's rant about the lack of
good hosts?
Click to expand...

But we lived in a three network world back then--four if you count NET/PBS. Of course they'd be romanticized, they were true broadcasters. There are a lot more niches (and channels) to program to now.

As for Millionaire: Nothing wrong with the game at all. It's just as interesting to me as it was years ago.
 
M.J. said:
They're using celebrities again? I sure won't be watching. That's what killed them after 9/11.
Click to expand...
I actually think it was ABC's 'brilliant' decision to run the show four nights a week instead of needed scripted shows, but anyway...

M.J. said:
The other problem is that 10 years ago, winning a million dollars on TV was a huge thing - it was new and different. We were used to much smaller prizes on Jeopardy! and Wheel of Fortune, and even smaller prizes on some other shows. How many other shows have come out since then that offer a prize of $1,000,000? First there were the copycats on the other networks including NBC's 21 revival, FOX's Greed, and CBS's woefully bad Winning Lines. More recently there have been TPIR Million Dollar Spectaculars, and DoND. Winning $1,000,000 on TV is too generic today, it doesn't have the impact it did in 1999. Additionally that much money is less valuable today because of inflation.
Click to expand...
It's not less valuable in terms of the mindset of the typical person watching--especially considering the weak economy and job losses. Even though viewership is half of what it was in 1999 (which is hardly a surprise or a cause for concern since it's a special), Millionaire still carries the basic appeal of everyday people winning big cash by answering some increasingly difficult trivia questions.
 
Nate Wesley said:
bpatrick said:
Beverly also mentions Tim Brando's radio show on which Brando,
who nearly got the hosting job on network "Wheel Of Fortune"
in 1989 when Pat Sajak started his short-lived talk show, expressed
the opinion that only Regis and Tom Bergeron, among active hosts
who have come along since Sajak and Trebek, know how to make
the game the star and themselves secondary. He thinks Drew Carey
tries to overshadow the contestants and pricing games on "TPIR,"
but that some producer--noting Howie Mandel's success on "Deal Or
No Deal"--decided that "Price" had to replace Bob Barker with an actor.
Once one gets past Regis and Tom, he says, there are no Cullens, Barkers,
Rayburns, Kennedys, Narzes (is that right?), Martindales, Luddens, or
Marshalls out there.

Thoughts either about "Millionaire" or Brando's rant about the lack of
good hosts?
Click to expand...

But we lived in a three network world back then--four if you count NET/PBS. Of course they'd be romanticized, they were true broadcasters. There are a lot more niches (and channels) to program to now.

As for Millionaire: Nothing wrong with the game at all. It's just as interesting to me as it was years ago.
Click to expand...

Brando feels that radio training made the older generation, which is largely passing from the scene (on that list Bill Cullen, Gene Rayburn, Allen Ludden, and Jack Narz are no longer with us), that much better; even Barker will tell you that he did man-on-the-street shows in Springfield, MO, in the '40s; those shows, and every city seemed to have one, involved ad-lib conversation with total strangers (Bill Cullen did one in Pittsburgh; he set up a table, chair, and microphone in front of the jewelry store which sponsored him, and in addition to the interviews asked simple quiz questions for a discount in the store). Even in the early days, actors were risky; Lee Bowman of "What's Going On?" is the classic case; one night the show ran three minutes short and he simply said, "That's all the time we have, good night."

I think what Brando is trying to say is that actors tend to compete with the format and the contestants (in his opinion), whereas the best hosts get out of the way and let the game and contestants be the show. (He might add that Sajak gladly takes a back seat to Vanna.) He just doesn't see Drew Carey doing that; OTOH, he praises non-actors like Regis and Bergeron for putting themselves in the secondary role.

True, everybody has to start somewhere, but Barker will tell you that the kind of experience he got in local radio just isn't available anymore.

Would anyone care to argue that there are emcees other than Sajak, Trebek, Regis, and
Bergeron--working now--who do ad-lib well and know how to subordinate themselves?
I don't mean that as a challenge to me but to Brando.

BTW, "Millionaire" was down again Tuesday night, finishing fourth in the timeslot behind CBS's strongest show, "NCIS"; Fox's "Hell's Kitchen"; and NBC's "America's Got Talent," the strongest show this summer. Viewership is down under six million. Beverly still opposes the celebrity gimmick. And I have one criticism: if they're going to put contestants on the clock, don't start it until Regis finishes reading the question. By the time he's done, ten seconds or more have elapsed. It works for "Jeopardy!"; contestants cannot ring in until Trebek finishes reading the clue.
 
bpatrick said:
if they're going to put contestants on the clock, don't start it until Regis finishes reading the question. By the time he's done, ten seconds or more have elapsed. It works for "Jeopardy!"; contestants cannot ring in until Trebek finishes reading the clue.
Click to expand...

To a degree, it also works for Family Feud's "Fast Money" round -- the clock does not begin until the contestant answers the first question.
 
I almost spit out my soda at the idea of Regis putting himself in a secondary role. I mean, seriously, that's funny. I love seeing him do Millionaire, so this isn't intended to be a negative thing, but--intentionally or not--he makes just about everything he does as much about him as anything else. He may let the contestants into the spotlight with him to a degree--making them part of his schtick--but he takes a backseat to no one. Meredith Viera, on the other hand, doesn't dominate the show in that same way. If anything, her version is more "about the contestants" than Reegis's is.

And to add to Brando's list, I'd suggest John O'Hurley tends to let the families be the star of the show; he does his jokes and keeps control over 10 contestants on stage at the same time, but he's a brilliant fit for Feud (as he was for To Tell the Truth a few years ago). Frankly, I feel even Jeff Foxworthy fits that bill; what I see on fifth grader is someone who knows how to nudge and cajole the best out of the various types of contestants to let themselves shine through. Again, like every host, he has to be the lead presence, but most of what he does is geared towards exposing the contestants' personalities. Bob Saget did much the same thing on 1 Vs 100.


As for the Millionaire clock, I wouldn't care one way or another if they start the clock after the answers are all read aloud. If so, great, if not, so be it. Like Jeopardy, the savvy players will be reading ahead and anticipating what's being asked well before Regis's mouth catches up.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom