They clearly just want to provoke a reaction and spark off discussion. They conveniently ignore that Big Brother was torn to shreds by doing just that. How the same producer/channel combination can forget that is beyond me.

Weakest Link became a less nasty show and ended up thriving to the point of being promoted to BBC One. DoND didn't even become notably less nasty when public opinion turned drastically on its fundamental justification of nastiness.

It's funny that you were thinking that Deal has jumped the shark; I was considering making a post saying the same thing. The only reason I didn't is because there've been more egregious examples in the show's history (snowball throwing into a chimney in Dec 2009 comes to mind).

I would say that this continues a trend where the Deal team are displacing a game with parabolic odds of risk-reward and limited information, to including games with fixed odds and 100% information. This could well be because it costs less to manufacture a feelgood ending, than to have a memorable win that they can't afford.

The producers are constantly trying to find ways to update the game, to make it more popular. They know that twists are entertaining to the pilgrims, even more so when it's the fist time a twist's been tried. I think that, even with one of the most entertaining game shows of the time, when producing nearly 300 episodes a year, the producers are finding the show a bit of a struggle to keep refreshing. What they don't know is, the show was fine, just the way it was.

There's this disconnect between the show and the viewers, which has been growing for a while, but has been accelerating in the last year or so. Last year, when I had my (in)famous rant, I thought that the problems on the show had been foisted on them by unfortunate circumstances with a reduced budget and more desperate players. I realise now that much of the show's problems have been of their own making.

The increase in cautious players on the show I think has a correlation between how much the show can afford to pay out. By deliberately bringing on more cautious players (and leaving gamblers to specials such as Christmas, for example), they've also brought in people who don't just want, but need money - some desperately.

I don't think the producer(s) who play the role of the banker, can morally take on the burden of having people's dreams crushed in a show that's not suited to them so often; so, the only choice is to make the game easier - extra offers, twists - while adding more gimmicks to encourage people to continue watching on a show with lower payouts.

What's worse is that, while the producers probably recognise there's a problem, it's easier for them to make tweaks to the format (like Big Brother) than to tackle the show's problems in any meaningful way. I note that Who Wants to Be a Millionaire - a game that mirrors Deal with risk in respects - was sunk by similar inaction until it was too late, while it's American counterpart has thrived through making bold changes to the show.

I'm sad that the show's changed so much from its heyday in 2006, when it was fresh, bold, and completely different to anything out there. I have ideas for how the show could be improved in 2012, but I fear that the show will be so far gone at the end of 2011, that it'll be too late to save it. While the show may not be aimed at us 'aficionados' anymore, the producers have done what they think was necessary to keep the show on air. I don't agree with it, but I can understand it.

We haven't yet had any players who have appeared this year play the game, so the mix of contestants' attitude to risk-reward may be different, and the games become genuinely entertaining again, without adding forced feelgood action. That's all I can hope for, really.

Thanks for reminding me of that one. Not.

I don't even think they are seeking less aggressive players, it's just that they have valued contestant diversity over contestant aggression. In 2006, they could do both easily. In 2010, not so much.

But they still want to push gambling, Noel still has a manipulative phrasebook and uses it with glee (and you could say he makes a song and dance about it!), and they want to twist the show to bits. And because this involves arbitrary additional EV+ gambles, it soaks up the budget. If they played it straight, they'd save money, and not lose many viewers - especially older viewers for whom continuity is likely to be important.

And the US Millionaire isn't doing that brilliantly in its new guise, and our show fell at least as much after the format revisions as before. Oh, and Scott was aggressive in gameplay; funnily enough his game was played straight...

I said that to the missus when we watched it earlier on Sky+. As soon as she said Deal to the gamble I said to her the first two boxes she chooses will be nothing then the third will be double!

It was bound to happen, I'm sure she must have been in on it for it to happen like that!

I saw the six pages of this and knew I had to watch!

It was a bit like a bad fanscript of Deal or No Deal put to film, wasn't it? If someone had posted that in the Spoiler forum people wouldn't have believed it. And clearly had she found three Nothings, the Banker would have rang up and given her a couple of grand anyway. Or produced a fourth set of boxes

You can see why they're doing it, to keep the viewers watching. But simply they're never going to regain the two million they've lost since 2007, and all they're doing is either annoying long-time fans or confusing new fans. As crazyeddie said, it's sad to see what was The Greatest Gameshow Ever turn into this.

Specifically written by someone who was somehow of the persuasion Noel didn't goad the players enough. One of the banned members used to write fantastic fantasy DoND, then somehow he changed...



Hah! I hate that you're not obviously wrong...



Exactly. The show is getting increasingly desperate, and it's on its way out, surely. A show that is meant to be constrained in budget throwing ten grand away in a dodgy stunt like this? Will not work.