Body Language

[The Pyramids]

No discussion of the can be complete without mentioning 'Body Talk,' Goodson's last known pilot.

To my knowledge it doesn't circualte but the 'Game Show Pilot Light' page has a good description. With four celebrities again and no puzzles it would seem to have been closer to 'Showoffs'.

[SRIV94]

[quote name=\'calliaume\' post=\'129246\' date=\'Aug 26 2006, 08:15 PM\']
Only a few shows introduced in the 1980s straddled (Blockbusters and Scrabble come to mind, but no other shows that lasted much more than six to nine months).  [/quote]

Of course, by 1986 SCRABBLE's format was adjusted to make it a game where straddling wasn't necessary.

Doug -- and the countdown to 2200 continues (still broadcasting remotely from NY)

[beatlefreak84]

One thought I had about possibly fixing the scoring system on BL yet avoiding the whole scoring system snafu:

Make the game first to three (if there's a 2-2 tie, you could keep the tie-breaker the same as it was); award a flat $500 for winning the game.  After playing the bonus game, should there be extra time left (i.e., if somebody did a 3-0 clean sweep), you could do something like TJW did:  an audience game.  I was thinking along the lines of having somebody come up from the audience and act out a set of three words for the celebrities in 30 seconds; each word successfully communicated gets the person $25.  I figure, with the picking of the audience member, short interview, and game, you would make up the time you needed.

I liked the idea of a play-along puzzle after the acting...that's what made shows like Celebrity Charades boring to me (ignoring Squeaky...) because I couldn't play along with them.  But, then again, that's just me...I'm kinda interested to see Showoffs when Jamie puts it up just as a comparison, though.

So, what do you think?

Anthony

[TLEberle]

If you look at the first two puzzles as practice rounds (which they are, since you can win both or lose both, and that has Not Thing One to do with whether you'll get to $500 or not), then the whole game hinges on the last two puzzles, making it a best-of-three. And that's not so horrible. The scoring also means all four players will get one chance to act out the charades during the game- Anthony's idea could have the game ending before one team gets a chance to play their second round.

Given whatever arbitrary restrictions they had on the format, I think the scoring is about as good as can be. And anyway, the whole point of the show is the acting and the puzzles, and there's plenty of both. It's hard to come away disappointed.

[rebelwrest]

[quote name=\'beatlefreak84\' post=\'129262\' date=\'Aug 26 2006, 11:19 PM\']
So, what do you think?
[/quote]

I have been chastised many times, and hopefully some people will learn from my experiences.  I have learned never end a post with "what do you think".  If someone finds a little nitpick, you will be asking for it.

I have thought somewhat about the scoring structure.  The first to $500 rule stays the same.  The first round puzzles stay at $100 a piece, but in the second round the first puzzle is worth $200 and the second one is worth $300.  If your team gets both $100 puzzles, your team tries for the $300 puzzle.  If each team got a $100 puzzle, the team that got the most words gets the $300 puzzle.  If both teams tie with each team getting the same amount of words, whoever got those words in the fastest time get the $300 puzzle.

[TLEberle]

[quote name=\'rebelwrest\' post=\'129264\' date=\'Aug 26 2006, 09:08 PM\']
I have thought somewhat about the scoring structure.  The first to $500 rule stays the same.  The first round puzzles stay at $100 a piece, but in the second round the first puzzle is worth $200 and the second one is worth $300.  If your team gets both $100 puzzles, your team tries for the $300 puzzle.  If each team got a $100 puzzle, the team that got the most words gets the $300 puzzle.  If both teams tie with each team getting the same amount of words, whoever got those words in the fastest time get the $300 puzzle.
[/quote]On (most) Friday nights, I go play board games with a group of people, and most of them are fairly complex. I don't mind, in fact, I like the challenge of trying to juggle eight different commodities and trying to make as many widgets as I can with them.

But we're talking about TV here. Say it with me, class: "If your rule needs an exception, it's a bad rule." You've gone from comparing who got more words, or who got those words right in the faster time...it makes MY head spin. The Super Password scoring system worked on Super Password because the game play bounced between both people. That didn't happen on Body Language.

You do NOT want people scratching their heads trying to figure out why one team and not the other gets to play the $300 puzzle, because head scratching turns to channel changing, and your show magically becomes thirteen-and-out.

[beatlefreak84]

If you look at the first two puzzles as practice rounds (which they are, since you can win both or lose both, and that has Not Thing One to do with whether you'll get to $500 or not), then the whole game hinges on the last two puzzles, making it a best-of-three. And that's not so horrible. The scoring also means all four players will get one chance to act out the charades during the game- Anthony's idea could have the game ending before one team gets a chance to play their second round.

I didn't really think about that until you had said it, but you're absolutely right...hmm; I guess my idea isn't as flawless as I initially thought it was....

I guess a potential way to fix it is what was done on syndie MG:  have the two players play two games against each other and then whisk them away for two new players.  Have the players then switch their positions and celebs each day so that, on one of the days, your team is guaranteed to be able to play twice.  But, I'll be the first to admit that this would be kinda hard to pull off today from an execution standpoint because having people play for two complete shows and then not having either one return as a champion would seem very confusing to somebody just watching the show in passing:  "Is this a rerun?  Didn't I see these two on yesterday?"  It definitely looks better on paper than in practice....

I agree with you, Travis; at least the first two rounds allowed contestants to pick up some money and, as you said, practice the game for the important rounds.  I don't have a huge problem with it; however, my concern with it is that, with the way the positions are set up, the celebs do all of the puzzle guessing in the second half of the show (unless there's a tie breaker), and so your celeb has to be on the ball for you to have a shot at winning.  Honestly, if they switched the roles for the "rounds that count," and let the contestant do all of the guessing, I'd be fine.

With that said, though, I really enjoy watching BL, scoring system snafu or not....

Anthony

P.S.  I don't necessarily believe that asking "What do you think?" by itself invites criticism; I think that it's pretty much assumed that, if you post an idea for a change to a show and/or a proposal for a show, whether you asked for it or not, criticism will follow.

[dzinkin]

[quote name=\'beatlefreak84\' post=\'129274\' date=\'Aug 27 2006, 01:24 AM\']
P.S.  I don't necessarily believe that asking "What do you think?" by itself invites criticism; I think that it's pretty much assumed that, if you post an idea for a change to a show and/or a proposal for a show, whether you asked for it or not, criticism will follow.
[/quote]
"Pretty much assumed"?  I only wish.  Far too often, "What do you think?" really means "Please tell me how great my idea is and don't even think of telling me anything else."

[Robert Hutchinson]

I don't see a big problem with a 3-0 sweep leaving out a player. Let the celebrities give the clues for the first two puzzles. (This is how BL did it anyway, right? It's been a while.) If that ends 1-1, no problem. If it ends 2-0, let the trailing team play the third puzzle. If the 2-0 team steals that puzzle for the win, is the civilian really going to be unhappy? Let them give the clues in the $10,000 bonus round if it'll make them feel better.

(Heck, let the civilians start the game. Surely it's not a crime for a celebrity to not get to act. On a game show, I mean.)

[TonicBH]

I'm all for the "Best three out of five" match, and Robert's suggestion on letting the trailing team do the third one works out because then the loser doesn't get gypped, in addition to letting the contestants do the charades in the first round. I'd also keep the "Two Loss Rule" as well, gives them a second chance.

Now all you need is some cutesy puzzles and a good host, and you got something that could last for at least a season.

[uncamark]

"Showoffs"' strength was the game structure.  Its host was its weakness.  "Body Language"'s was vice versa.  Do the "Showoffs" format (the initial format, of course) with Tom Kennedy and the problem is solved.  

Actually, the puzzle part was always a little awkward to me.  I would've preferred either charades or fill-in word puzzles, not both.

Also, "Showoffs" would've been better with Larry Blyden.  I like the idea of a show where there's a lot of hyperactivity in which the host is a calming influence on the proceedings.  Blyden would've given the show a center that it didn't have with Van, who was a decent host on shows that required someone more showbizzier or shucking-and-jiving.  Not on "Showoffs."

[JasonA1]

I liked the BL word puzzles. I know you didn't say you hated them, just didn't like them in conjunction with charades, but on that front the sentence-style puzzles allowed for some very un-charade-like words to be acted out and made for a fun game.

-Jason

[tvwxman]

[quote name=\'uncamark\' post=\'129465\' date=\'Aug 28 2006, 04:50 PM\']
"Showoffs"' strength was the game structure.  Its host was its weakness.  "Body Language"'s was vice versa.  Do the "Showoffs" format (the initial format, of course) with Tom Kennedy and the problem is solved.  

Also, "Showoffs" would've been better with Larry Blyden.  I like the idea of a show where there's a lot of hyperactivity in which the host is a calming influence on the proceedings.  Blyden would've given the show a center that it didn't have with Van, who was a decent host on shows that required someone more showbizzier or shucking-and-jiving.  Not on "Showoffs."
[/quote]
See now, I disagree on this (disclaimer : I'm a huge Bobby Van fan)...

Last month , while on business in LA, I went to UCLA to check out their shows (thanks for the great tips, Mike!)... and watched the Showoffs pilot with Larry... you're right that he had a calming influence on the place, but I felt that Bobby was better suited for the show......

You're right about the Showoffs vs Body Language debate though....Tom was great for BL, though the format needed some scoring tweaking....