Deal or No Deal

Have you ever wanted to win $1,000,000? Well, imagine you were on a set with 26 cases held by hot models, you are choosing your own case and eliminate the others, hoping you win the top prize, while a mysterious figure known as The Banker tries to stop you from winning the million.

That's pretty much what Deal or No Deal is in a nutshell. It's all about being lucky with the cases, the banker and- I have to mention them- the models. Don't act you don't know what I'm referring to.

Anyway, the host of this wildly purely luck game show is Howie Mandel, who is pretty decent with a silly premise like this.

So, if you intended to watch a high-stake game show with a million dollars on the line and hot models, then DOND is the show for you!

First off,I don't want to sound like some buzz-kill here in regards to this show,or sound like I'm taking this show too seriously. Basically,when and if I watch this,besides the possibility that there's not much else on,I watch this primarily because I'm a student of human nature,and I do find it interesting what--when it comes to money--is any given individual's "breaking point" is. Sometimes I put myself in the place of the contestant,where I would or wouldn't deal. Sometimes I put myself in the role of Howie(and he does a very good job as the host,one part friend,one part Devil's advocate,lighter on the advocate). I even occasionally put myself in the role of one of the Oh-so-Gorgeous models(don't ask)! Much of the time,though,I'm usually just watching to guess what the Banker would do,figuring how much he would offer according to which cases have been opened.

The falsehoods I'm referring to--and thusly,why I feel like this show is equally,if not more so,head-banging and frustrating in nature--are some very important little notions and precipices that this show so famously stands atop. I've narrowed down the offenders to three biggies:

1. Each contestant is playing for a Million Dollars. While in principle,this is a correct assertion,more realistically and literally,the contestants are more playing to see how much they can make off the BAnker's offers. At it's heart,this show is adversarial,and few contestants leave with what's in the case they select(and usually,when they do,it's WAY less than they wanted).

2. That the case boards are easy to read. For example,just because someone eliminates a fair cluster of small amounts,particularly early,means that the board IS a player's board. By contrast,just because a number of large amounts are off the board at the start,DOESN'T mean the board cannot be favorable. In other words,in a game of probabilities,just because the high odds might favor the player ISN'T in and of itself a good tell of whether or not a player should deal.

3. After the deal has been made(and often it is),the host will ask the contestant what he or she would've taken if they'd gone on. Ponder that for just a second. Unless the contestant in question had a map plan of which cases they would've taken and when,this is a HUGELY false device,meant to instill a sort of "What if...?" twist to the end-game that is neither truthful or necessary.

There are more minor examples of these:magical thinking devices that are to somehow fool the contestant(And by proxy,the audience)into thinking that this is(or is supposed to be)ruled by something other than happenstance or luck;the assumption that the contestants are all somehow "average" people,when it seems like there is a definite type of people who are selected(usually,that connotes a person who possesses a lot of enthusiasm,good luck charms,loud, resolute family members and friends and stays pretty light on such meaningless stuff as intelligence,particularly in math,pretty SUB-average IMHO). I guess what I'm trying to say,in sum,is that this show is a perfectly okay wasting of an hour's TV time,but you might want to keep in mind that this is as much(if not more so)sideshow and theatrics as it is any sort of chance for people to get rich. Do that,and the viewing of DoND will go down a lot easier,particularly if you are not their type of contestant material.

I once used to watch deal or no deal regularly. I watched it every time it came on NBC or any other network, but one day I stopped and thought to myself, did I just succumb to insanity as Einstein defined it, according to Einstein insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different outcome (not verbatim). What does this have to do with this show, well keep reading. Deal or no Deal is a show you become an expert at after watching a couple of episodes. Same story same occurrences but maybe the models might differ from one episode to another but mostly even they are the same. So for me there is no point on watching this show regularly when I can predict what's going to happen. After seeing about five or six episodes of this, I could literally tell what case number the players will choose, and what the banker will offer. For a game show it's not bad. But this is not a show you would never get tired of, or at least be in love with for a long time.

What makes a good game show? A good game show is one that the viewer can play at home while watching it on T.V. You can answer Jeopardy questions or you can solve puzzles on Wheel Of Fortune; however - you, as a viewer, really can't do much of anything on this show.

The ONLY exciting thing about this show is the fact that there is big money involved. This is great for the contestant, but the viewer can only live vicariously through the winner.

Seriously, this is only fun to watch when the person loses (or wins) all the money - mostly loses though. It seems that later episodes, the producers put contestants on that had a good sob story (not to diminish them).

I think the reason this game show became such a hit was that they put a pretty good improv comedian (see his early works) as the host and that the games rules are ultra simple - answer only one question (Deal or No Deal).

I can only give this show a rating of 3 because it is the same ole' episode every single time. I can even guess with pretty good accuracy what the banker will offer.

Since when does a show have to be "intellectually Challenging"? Wheel of Fortune has lasted for decades with practically NO intellect required. (Other then knowing the English Language) The reason this "game" is so good is because it IS Brilliantly simple. They could've just called it "Greed" because that's all it's about.. that and knowing how to play the odds. In the tradition of "Let's make a Deal" where contestants keep their prizes or chose between trading for what's behind curtain 1, 2 or 3; there hasn't been a similar game on television since.

You have to Praise "originality" on television these days no matter how simple. Look at how many Networks copy the success of an Original show.. there was American Idol, so other networks tried to bring back Star Search to compete, and then Nashville Star.. both of which never came close. Survivor becomes a hit, so they try Fear Factor, The Cage, and endless others. "Tough Man" makes a mark as a Boxing competition, so they throw out the Contender and another Boxing reality show. Lost becomes a hit, so networks try and compete or Capitalize with Surface, Invasion and Threshold ... Law and Order and CSI are hits, so they make two more Spinoffs of each that saturate the Original.

These days, if a show isn't competing with a similar show it should be PRAISED. Surprisingly enough, "Deal or No Deal" actually has that "addictive" entertaining quality to it. No matter how simple it is. It's only downside in programming is that it's competing for airtime against "American Idol" which has been dominating 3 nights in a row in it's new season... blame those responsible for scheduling.

I can see this show returning many more times. And as for the "Banker", He'll probably be revealed one of these days. Maybe It'll be Regis. Simple it may be, but with all the copy-cat programming, at least it's refreshingly "Different".