The first night of Deal or No Deal did fairly well in the ratings and the second night did even better. Tonight's episode is against weaker competition so I'm guessing it will do fine. It was a pretty good episode, too…though I wish its makers wouldn't do so many obvious edits. Also, much of what Howie Mandel says has been dubbed in later, usually to overexplain what's on the line at some key moment. On tonight's installment, they did more of it than they did on the first two shows — or at least, it seemed more obvious — and that further took away from the "live" feel.
If there's no sign of ratings fatigue by the time the week is out, NBC will probably order up more episodes — the producers are already searching for contestants — and all the networks will probably green-light some more Big Money Game Shows. So what does this mean on the Grand Scheme of Television?
Let's flash back a few years. In August of '99, ABC debuted Who Wants to Be a Millionaire with similar stunt-scheduling. It was an unexpected smash and quickly, we had more episodes flooding that network's schedule and imitations like Greed and The Weakest Link and Winning Lines and Twenty One and I can't remember them all, nor can you. Most failed rapidly and even the original Millionaire show got tired in a hurry. Still, for a brief time, the networks couldn't get enough of 'em. Why? Well, for one thing, they were pretty simple formula shows, easy to launch. With other kinds of programming, you have to worry about getting a good script each week and developing storylines and characters and maybe booking guest stars. The variables are a lot more complicated. But the real reason the suits upstairs will order game shows (and reality shows, as well) is that they like to think they can make themselves impervious to union uprisings. That was part of the thinking that got us all those game and reality shows then, and history may be starting to repeat itself.
The three big labor organizations in Hollywood are the Directors Guild, the Writers Guild and the Screen Actors Guild. Of these, the directors are the least likely to ever interrupt production. The DGA does not strike. (Well, they did once but it only lasted — I am not exaggerating — about 15 minutes.) Depending on who you ask, this is either because the DGA is wise and sage and knows how to work creatively with the producers…or because they know how to make a quick deal that undercuts the other unions. In any case, a DGA strike — if such a thing ever occurs — would not likely stop the taping of a show like Deal or No Deal. It might harm a show that needs a more sensitive hand in charge…someone skilled in story and characterization and nuance. But with a game or reality show, even if the union director were to go pound pavement, there would always be some technician who could slip into the chair, follow the real director's shot list and crank out what would seem like an acceptable episode.
So that leaves the writers and actors. Most game shows are not WGA-signatory, which means that they either employ non-union writers or they employ WGA writers but call them something else — segment producers or production staff or researchers or something — and argue that the guy sitting there writing dialogue and questions is not a writer. The WGA is challenging this via various avenues but hasn't gotten very far…yet. In any case, you could probably still go right on taping Deal or No Deal if the writers go on strike, as seems highly possible when the current contract expires in November of 2007. Hollywood has not seen a big, production-stopping strike, by the way, since the WGA went out in 1988.
What about actors? Deal or No Deal employs 26 models and they're probably all union members but, I dunno…call me crazy. I suspect that if you scoured Hollywood top to bottom, you could find 26 attractive women without SAG cards but with a burning desire to get on network TV…and you could replace the guy who plays The Banker on Deal or No Deal with the NBC parking lot attendant. So all they really have to worry about is Howie Mandel. Doing the show without him might be tough but not as tough as, say, trying to do Will & Grace without Will or Grace.
Now, I'm not suggesting here that NBC's interest in Deal or No Deal is because they expect a SAG strike soon. The current contract doesn't expire until July of 2008, which is the same time as the current DGA pact. Nor can they even assume that this particular series will be on their schedule then. But it got on the air, and may well become a series, in part because that's the current thinking at the networks; that at least one of those three unions — probably not the DGA — is going to go to war for long overdue gains, and it will not be a brief skirmish. So recently, there's been a renewed interest at the networks in cultivating reality and game shows, in part because, once again, they're smelling Big Strike a few years down the line. As when Millionaire debuted in a similar time of labor unease, someone is saying to someone else, "This is the kind of show we need to work towards."
Will this strategy work? Of course not. In fact, I'd be very surprised if there's anyone high up at the any of the networks who thinks they will not take a massive, crippling hit if they try to rely on "union-proof" shows. It's the Nuclear Option they know will result in massive, self-inflicted wounds…which doesn't mean they won't try it. In a future posting here, I'll try and explain why.