Wednesday, July 17, 2013

Looking for Mr. Compatible

Ever since Dating Game brought the meat market to our genre, Chuck Barris wannabes have been trying to engineer onscreen hookups between winsome would-be lovers. The latest try is Perfect Score on the CW.

The gimmick here is the use of compatibility scores to create kind of a Deal or No Deal vibe. On the debut episode two female roommates had to choose among ten more or less hunky males. Everybody had taken compatibility tests, and each gentleman was assigned a (secret) dollar amount depending on how compatible he was with each of the ladies. The more compatible, the bigger the amount.

(The "ladies and gentlemen" stuff sounds Victorian, I know, but I can't resist.) As the lovelies eliminated each of the men one-by-one in a series of excruciatingly silly games, his dollar amount was revealed and taken off the board. So you can see how things resembled Howie's old show. Except the top amount was fifty grand, not a million. The CW may be cheaper than cable.

Eventually one of the lovelies wound up with her $5,000 man. She got the money and a date. The show moved quick enough due to the half-hour length, and Arielle Kebbel hosted competently. The volume level was cranked way too high, but my ancient ears can only take so much twenty-something squealing. It wasn't the worst dating show I've seen, but this thing ain't pitched at my demo.

Nielsen gave the show a so-so response: 820K total viewers and 0.4/0.3 18-49 ratings for the first and second half-hours. Not terrible by CW standards but much worse than its lead-in Whose Line.

UPDATE: The CW doesn't like the show's numbers and bumps it to the Friday wasteland in August. So long, Arielle.

7 comments:

  1. i have an opinion on Perfect Score, but i'll think about it for a few days before i considers sharing it, as i'm sure it is flawed somehow.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It wasn't funny the first time, it's just annoying the second time, and if you keep doing it, the posts will be removed as spam.

    ReplyDelete
  3. That's your opinion that it isn't funny. But let's accept the premise that it's not. My comments, and your response, are very telling statements.

    Good luck with your blog. I'm sure you write it with no interest in anybody reading it, so I'm sure you couldn't care less when nobody comments on your writing. Why not just block comments instead of finding ways to refute the comments and lecture, needlessly, to your readers?

    Can't figure that one out, and I don't care. Keep pointing out how your simple-minded readers are flawed in their opinions if that makes you happy. I'm bored with your superiority. And I'm sure you're pleased by that.

    Again, good luck with your blog. You can't please all of the people all of the time. I'm sure the majority of your readers love what you do, and don't want you to change a thing.

    I'd say don't waste your time lecturing me with your intellectual superiority, but you probably can't help yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You're right, I won't waste time lecturing you. Bye-bye.

    ReplyDelete
  5. How come you didn't mention- the $50,000 top prize win- for the second show?

    ReplyDelete
  6. "How come you didn't mention- the $50,000 top prize win- for the second show?"

    I only reviewed the premiere episode. Didn't even hang around for the second ep. This show is not my cup of tea, but then again, it's not intended for ancient grumps like me (wink).

    ReplyDelete