Family Feud Live...

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'116353\' date=\'Apr 17 2006, 08:53 AM\']
I don't think that having the match turn on one game is that good of TV, either.
[/quote]
I realize this. But, by virtue of you having a brain in your head and a fair understanding of what makes a good game for the game's sake, you're not the target audience.

I don't see how that disqualifies me from a career in the industry

It doesn't, so long as you understand that your job as a producer is to maximize your audience, period, paragraph, end of story. And sometimes that means that balance in scoring goes out the window.

(Note that I'm throwing out the word "fairness". Because it's still absolutely fair. All contestants are playing under the same set of rules. It might not appear to your sense of aesthetics, but it's still fair.)

A producer that thinks outside the box could come up with a happy medium.

Sure. But your beef was "why can't every game be worth $100?" And I told you why. Whether you like it or not is yours to decide. But I'm telling you why it usually happens that way.

[Steve McClellan]

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'116326\' date=\'Apr 17 2006, 05:51 AM\']With a little creativity, "Card Sharks" can easily run as a half hour program, with the match ending at 22:00 or wherever they need it, and it can be done with no returning champions. And it can be done the way we remember it: with two decks of cards, survey questions, the works.[/quote]
I got yer creativity right here.

One possible solution: Based on the idea Scrabble used. Same basic Card Sharks, with two rows of five cards. Best of *five* match. Play as normal (up to 3 or 4 questions per game) until the producer decides we're running short on time. Play in sudden death from the next question on. Any subsequent games are three cards, one question. First to three games goes to money cards, for chance at eleventy billion dollars. Say goodbye to contestant and home audience. (Better yet: Say goodbye to home audience; tell champion we'll see him next time.) Repeat tomorrow.

Not perfect, but I think it's a step in the right direction.

[Clay Zambo]

First--I realize (a little late) that this was meant to be a thread about live shows, not TV revivals.  If the PTB want to move this to a separate thread, I understand.

My ramping-up-gradually idea was an effort to balance the realization that later games aren't harder to win than earlier games with the need to make a good finish.    The Special Deck idea, granted, adds a heapin' pile of luck to the outcome of the game, perhaps too big a pile.

I'm all for games taking as long as they take, and spanning matches across two shows where necessary, but I realize that more packagers don't like that idea than do.

[sshuffield70]

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'116326\' date=\'Apr 17 2006, 07:51 AM\']
When I saw the final product of the 2001 version of "Card Sharks," I was suprised to see that the show was so bastardized. Even "Match Game" stuck with filling in the blank, and the Audience/Head-to-Head Match.

With a little creativity, "Card Sharks" can easily run as a half hour program, with the match ending at 22:00 or wherever they need it, and it can be done with no returning champions. And it can be done the way we remember it: with two decks of cards, survey questions, the works. I don't understand why they went with the shortened game of one line of cards, which is really silly. How much sense does it make for me to win the game without having done anything except watch the other guy miss the sixth call?

I'm not getting my hopes up yet, we're a long way off, but "Card Sharks" deserves another chance to shine.
[/quote]

I agree, and have doing a message board version of the format for almost a year.  First two games for $250, third game for $500, fourth game (if you get there) is $750.  Outside of sudden death at the bell, it retains all the old rules.

BTW, some Net versions of CS have an $80,000 Money Cards.  Gee.....wonder where they got that from??