Author Topic: Steve Beverly comments on GSM (Read 4297 times)

whewfan · « **on:** June 19, 2006, 08:03:09 AM »

Here is basically what he said... he offered a suggestion that they should've had the surviving hosts of these game shows return, if not for a whole show, maybe a segment. I feel that would've been hit or miss. I also think that Bob Barker, Monty Hall, Jim Perry, Bob Eubanks, and maybe even Richard Dawson would've completely upstaged Ricki Lake with their years of experience behind them.

TPIR- There's no way Bob Barker would've wanted to make a brief appearance on GSM, it's almost an insult to a guy that's been on the air for almost 50 years. The audience response would've been thundering, but Bob would've completely taken the show away from Ricki Lake.

LMAD- Monty could've been sweet talked into doing maybe one deal. After all, he did make a couple of brief appearances on the most recent revival. However, he's almost the same age as Bob Barker, and while he's very sharp mentally, on his LMAD appearance, he was escorted by a model because of a recent knee injury.

Card Sharks- Of all hosts, Steve said it would've been a REAL treat to see Jim Perry after being absent from TV for such a long time. I think with a format like Card Sharks, getting Jim to host a question, and perhaps turn the cards for one question, would've been all too short.

Family Feud- Richard Dawson wouldn't want to fly from Hawaii just to make a brief appearance on GSM. He was still fairly sharp on the '94 Feud, but is he still sharp 12 years later? Richard returning to the Feud would've been like if Johnny Carson had returned to The Tonight Show. Everyone would've compared how he was then to how he is today. Richard was noticeably slower on the '94 Feud, which is why they trimmed the Bullseye game and gave 20 seconds instead of 15 seconds in Fast Money.

TLEberle · « **Reply #1 on:** June 19, 2006, 08:51:29 AM »

[quote name=\'whewfan\' post=\'121777\' date=\'Jun 19 2006, 05:03 AM\']
Here is basically what he said... he offered a suggestion that they should've had the surviving hosts of these game shows return, if not for a whole show, maybe a segment. I feel that would've been hit or miss. I also think that Bob Barker, Monty Hall, Jim Perry, Bob Eubanks, and maybe even Richard Dawson would've completely upstaged Ricki Lake with their years of experience behind them. [/quote] So not only do we know that he has no journalistic scruples, and that he coins words, but also that he has no clue how a television show goes about getting maximum ratings. We could chalk that up to his stubbornly believing that game shows can go back to the good old days of the 70s and 80s, but that's just not gonna happen.

cmjb13 · « **Reply #2 on:** June 19, 2006, 09:11:54 AM »

From the professor:

Quote

"GSN is about to bring back Perry's Card Sharks episodes next month."

Doesn't it already air weekends at 9:00?

Simple mistake I know. Doesn't anyone call him out on his method of journalism?

clemon79 · « **Reply #3 on:** June 19, 2006, 09:32:22 AM »

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'121780\' date=\'Jun 19 2006, 05:51 AM\']
So not only do we know that he has no journalistic scruples, and that he coins words, but also that he has no clue ~~how a television show goes about getting maximum ratings~~.
[/quote]
There, fixed that for you.

Trotting out the original hosts for a hi-howya-doin would also have been <Jon Stewart> awk-waaaard! </JS> when Press Your Luck time rolled around.

chris319 · « **Reply #4 on:** June 19, 2006, 09:45:13 AM »

Quote

believing that game shows can go back to the good old days of the 70s and 80s, but that's just not gonna happen

Some people clearly have a need to live in the past, but does it seem a bit undignified to trot these guys out (the surviving ones, anyway) as if they were show horses who have long since been put out to pasture? One has to think the "retirement" some of these guys are enjoying is less than voluntary, owing more to the demise of the daytime game show industry in this country.

tvmitch · « **Reply #5 on:** June 19, 2006, 12:00:52 PM »

I think that the montages in the beginning of each GSM ep so far are all well done...well done enough that the original hosts are showcased and that the viewing audience will have their memories jolted a little without the need to ever bring out an original host.

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #6 on:** June 19, 2006, 01:02:41 PM »

[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'121787\' date=\'Jun 19 2006, 09:45 AM\']Some people clearly have a need to live in the past, but does it seem a bit undignified to trot these guys out (the surviving ones, anyway) as if they were show horses who have long since been put out to pasture? One has to think the "retirement" some of these guys are enjoying is less than voluntary, owing more to the demise of the daytime game show industry in this country.[/quote]
Once again, the British had a perfect system for this. No awkward parade-of-has-beens on stage, but you got to see the original hosts in new clips talking about their shows as part of the montage package. Usually it was no more than a couple of brief comments, but geeks are satisfied, dignity is maintained and history is served.

FOXSportsFan · « **Reply #7 on:** June 19, 2006, 01:14:15 PM »

Adding to the notion of having say, Bob come out during the Price is Right episode...if you really want to keep viewers, you'd either have him host the whole thing or not at all. Odds are if he appeared, say in the middle of the episode for a segment, and then left, the ratings for the hour period would be shaped like a bell curve with the noticeable spike when Bob enters, and the noticeable plummet when Ricki re-enters.

Personally, I'm wishing Ricki Cheese was hosting this instead of Ricki Lake...

TLEberle · « **Reply #8 on:** June 19, 2006, 02:22:21 PM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'121784\' date=\'Jun 19 2006, 06:32 AM\']
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'121780\' date=\'Jun 19 2006, 05:51 AM\']
So not only do we know that he has no journalistic scruples, and that he coins words, but also that he has no clue ~~how a television show goes about getting maximum ratings~~.
[/quote]
There, fixed that for you.[/quote]Not really, you didn't. I try to at least have something more than an ad hominem attack when I say something like that. I don't like the way he carries himself as a fan, but I'm sure he's knowledgeable on other topics. I preferred the original unstruckthrough statement.

EDIT: Apparently I need to spend some quality time at Fark.com.

Robair · « **Reply #9 on:** June 19, 2006, 08:45:00 PM »

The man wants to drag out a big barrel and put postcards in it and have names plucked out. He thinks that alone can save the show.

Hey, Steve! Why not just grab a big theater organ, sign Revlon as the sole sponsor, and give the contestants the answers?

Jesus.

goongas · « **Reply #10 on:** June 19, 2006, 10:05:35 PM »

I think the major problem with the show is that audiences today want more sophisticated games in prime time and some of the shows featured have shown their age, at least to me.

clemon79 · « **Reply #11 on:** June 19, 2006, 10:10:58 PM »

[quote name=\'goongas\' post=\'121875\' date=\'Jun 19 2006, 07:05 PM\']
I think the major problem with the show is that audiences today want more sophisticated games in prime time
[/quote]
I dunno if you've noticed, but Millionaire and Deal Or No Deal aren't exactly sophisticated formats.

TLEberle · « **Reply #12 on:** June 19, 2006, 10:20:07 PM »

[quote name=\'goongas\' post=\'121875\' date=\'Jun 19 2006, 07:05 PM\']
I think the major problem with the show is that audiences today want more sophisticated games in prime time and some of the shows featured have shown their age, at least to me.
[/quote]
I would submit that the opposite is true. "Winning Lines," "Greed," "Chance of a Lifetime" were all interesting games, and none of them lasted. For a game show to succeed, it must be boiled down to its most basic elements, and that's too bad, because there are several neat things that could be done with a pedestrian quizzer, but they won't happen because people don't want to sit still for more than two minutes, or deal with complexity.

DrBear · « **Reply #13 on:** June 20, 2006, 09:17:55 AM »

First off, the few successes now are all well-established and more or less legacy viewing (WOF, J!, TPIR, Feud, Millionaire). The main problem is that Millionare raised the bar a bit too high - networks wanted immediate success and when they didn't get it, zonk! In the 60s, there was time for tweaking (changing a few rules or a host).
Another problem is that the bar has been raised high in other areas. How is Beat the Clock going to draw an audience that's used to Fear Factor? With casinos everywhere, the lure of watching people make good, but not huge, sums of money isn't as much of a draw. And young people are the target audience, but on the whole they'd rather participate in something (even a video game) rather than watch others do it. (Well, except for beautiful people threatening to have sex in California; since most of us will never do that, we're stuck watching it.)

(Again, it all goes back to the damn demographics. Advertisers want young viewers as much because their spending habits aren't set as because they have money. Seniors have money too, but their brand loyalty and years of exposure to false advertising means they aren't as malleable).

goongas · « **Reply #14 on:** June 20, 2006, 12:39:47 PM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'121878\' date=\'Jun 19 2006, 10:10 PM\']
[quote name=\'goongas\' post=\'121875\' date=\'Jun 19 2006, 07:05 PM\']
I think the major problem with the show is that audiences today want more sophisticated games in prime time
[/quote]
I dunno if you've noticed, but Millionaire and Deal Or No Deal aren't exactly sophisticated formats.
[/quote]

But the presentation is sophisticated, that was more what I meant.