Author Topic: GSF 50 Greatest List - RESULTS THREAD (Read 117193 times)

TLEberle · « **Reply #405 on:** September 13, 2006, 11:26:30 PM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'131449\' date=\'Sep 13 2006, 07:07 PM\']There is _no way_ I would put Barker at the top of such a list. I can think of at least three names right now that I would put ahead of him.[/quote]Good Lord man, only three? Are you feeling all right? (Maybe I should send up some of that black bean soup...)

When a host's recourse (or crutch, even) is to say "I'm going to give you the prize!" when something goes wrong: whether it's a game going kablooey, someone cheating/goofing up, or Bob not explaining the rules properly, that's not the mark of a good host. Bob Barker should not even get a sniff at the upper half of that list. Sure, I'm going based on the last few years of what I've seen of him, but he's captained a sinking ship for 35 years. There are many hosts who I would rank above him for many reasons.

/Bill Cullen was never named defendant in a sexual harassment lawsuit.
//That we know of.
///The man was so busy working that he probably didn't have time to...you know...
////Hey, this slash thing is quite fun. Everyone should try it once.

clemon79 · « **Reply #406 on:** September 13, 2006, 11:31:46 PM »

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'131459\' date=\'Sep 13 2006, 08:26 PM\']
Good Lord man, only three? Are you feeling all right?
[/quote]
I said "right now". As in "at that moment, off the top of my head." Given time I probably could come up with a couple more...

Quote

(Maybe I should send up some of that black bean soup...)

...oooh, or not. Yes. Three. No more, no less.

/I'll get the cheese
//you still owe me a recipe

Brandon Brooks · « **Reply #407 on:** September 14, 2006, 12:23:30 AM »

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'131459\' date=\'Sep 13 2006, 10:26 PM\']
When a host's recourse (or crutch, even) is to say "I'm going to give you the prize!" when something goes wrong: whether it's a game going kablooey, someone cheating/goofing up, or Bob not explaining the rules properly, that's not the mark of a good host. Bob Barker should not even get a sniff at the upper half of that list. Sure, I'm going based on the last few years of what I've seen of him, but he's captained a sinking ship for 35 years. There are many hosts who I would rank above him for many reasons.
[/quote]
I strongly disagree. It's looks good to be the good guy. There's nothing wrong with giving the contestant the benefit of the doubt, because game shows' sole purpose is to give prizes away. I'm sure people could come up with many situations when Bill Cullen gave contestants prizes they probably didn't deserve because of a goof he made.

I'm not saying Barker is the best ever, cause he ain't. However, I will fervently defend him in that he is good at what he does. I think you're wrong when you say Price is a "sinking ship."

Kevin Prather · « **Reply #408 on:** September 14, 2006, 12:31:24 AM »

I agree with most of what you said, Brandon, except for this.

[quote name=\'Brandon Brooks\' post=\'131464\' date=\'Sep 13 2006, 09:23 PM\']
...Game shows' sole purpose is to give prizes away.
[/quote]
Hardly. The sole purpose of a game show, a good one anyway, is to present a challenge to a contestant, and reward the contestant for besting the challenge. If the sole purpose is giving prizes away without a contestant earning it, you're venturing more in the direction of lottery games, in my opinion.

Robert Hutchinson · « **Reply #409 on:** September 14, 2006, 01:00:20 AM »

I would put Barker, while not at the top, near the top, simply because I think he is (still) very very good at audience and contestant interaction (often one and the same on TPIR, of course). I also would not put a tremendous amount of weight on versatility. It's worth something, sure, but if you stick to what you're good at, I hardly see how I can fault you for not being awful at something else every so often.

If a game show--any game show--has a "sole purpose", then that game show is doing something wrong.

Brandon Brooks · « **Reply #410 on:** September 14, 2006, 01:13:06 AM »

[quote name=\'whoserman\' post=\'131467\' date=\'Sep 13 2006, 11:31 PM\']
I agree with most of what you said, Brandon, except for this.

[quote name=\'Brandon Brooks\' post=\'131464\' date=\'Sep 13 2006, 09:23 PM\']
...Game shows' sole purpose is to give prizes away.
[/quote]
Hardly. The sole purpose of a game show, a good one anyway, is to present a challenge to a contestant, and reward the contestant for besting the challenge. If the sole purpose is giving prizes away without a contestant earning it, you're venturing more in the direction of lottery games, in my opinion.
[/quote]
Agreed, and by the way I *hate* all lottery shows except Illinois Instant Riches. And I really don't care for DoND.

There has to be some sort of challenge. But I guess my point is that no one's perfect. The majority of the time on Price, you earn what you win. If someone happens to get lucky against the house of Barker, so be it. That alone doesn't make him a crappy host.

TLEberle · « **Reply #411 on:** September 14, 2006, 01:29:59 AM »

[quote name=\'whoserman\' post=\'131467\' date=\'Sep 13 2006, 09:31 PM\']
I agree with most of what you said, Brandon, except for this.

[quote name=\'Brandon Brooks\' post=\'131464\' date=\'Sep 13 2006, 09:23 PM\']
...Game shows' sole purpose is to give prizes away.
[/quote]
Hardly. The sole purpose of a game show, a good one anyway, is to present a challenge to a contestant, and reward the contestant for besting the challenge. If the sole purpose is giving prizes away without a contestant earning it, you're venturing more in the direction of lottery games, in my opinion.
[/quote]
And you could even take this farther: the true purpose of a game show, above all else, is to draw eyeballs. The fact that some of them manage to be good television, challenging for the players on stage and at home, and compelling to watch is all gravy.

BrandonFG · « **Reply #412 on:** September 14, 2006, 02:18:56 AM »

I'll go ahead and add my list. Obviously, I've seen each show at least once. If there's a show that I've seen only once, my criteria for putting it on the list is whether or not the show was compelling enough to make me watch not only a second episode, but watch the show on a regular basis. Most of my final 10 are highly underrated shows that never got their due, and if they lasted awhile (more than two years), they never got a lot of credit. One exception is my #44.

1. Pyramids...great play-along factor and the finest bonus round action ever (save for Donnymid...it was eh)
2. Match Game...not much of a game, but was damned entertaining enough to make up for it
3. Jeopardy!...stands very well after 42 years, despite a lot of commercial gimmicks
4. The Price is Right...hasn't been that enjoyable since the late-90s IMO, but its history and older episodes makes up for it
5. Passwords...honestly, I should've switched this with #4, esp. after seeing the Klugman/Somers episode. I'd revive this as a lighthearted party-style game, kinda like Smush or Win Lose or Draw. Casual setting, where the viewers are on the outside looking in.
6. Wheel of Fortune...longevity and success...another show where its past enjoyability helps
7. Family Feud...good answer! About as simple as they come, but still fun
8. Hollywood Squares
9. $ale of the Century...childhood favorite, but a very fast-paced and suspenseful quiz game
10. The Joker's Wild...just an honest-to-goodness favorite, don't know why
11. Let's Make a Deal...look past the silly costumes and you can actually find some psychology.
12. The Gong Show
13. Tic Tac Dough
14. Press Your Luck...see #9 (not as much quiz though)
15. Scrabble
16. Card Sharks
17. To Tell the Truth
18. What's My Line?
19. Name that Tune
20. Who Wants to be a Millionaire...a "modern classic"
21. Blockbusters...deserved a longer run
22. (Classic) Concentration
23. Gambit*
24. Beat the Clock
25. I've Got a Secret
26. Win Ben Stein's Money...see #20
27. High Rollers
28. Split Second
29. Hollywood Showdown...an underrated original, something rare in the last 10 years
30. Chain Reaction...going more off the Cullen version, although the GSN revival has potential
31. GO...we've played this one at work, this would make an EXCELLENT game to play at a retreat or something for a teamwork exercise
32. Dating Game
33. Treasure Hunt...Deal or No Deal with the silly gimmicks, but doesn't take itself so damn seriously
34. Double Dare (Nickelodeon)...not the first kids game, but somehow is still considered the granddaddy of them all
35. Win, Lose, or Draw...see #5
36. Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego?...very clever and well-written kids show...didn't pander to the audience. The bonus round maps were a pain in the rear sometimes
37. Newlywed Game
38. Russian Roulette...GSN's best, would still love to see this in syndication
39. Debt...forgotten clever little gem
40. Remote Control
41. Tattle Tales
42. Face the Music
43. Jackpot
44. You Bet Your Life
45. The Challengers
46. Supermarket Sweep
47. Money Maze*
48. Shopping Spree
49. Greed...damn you FOX!
50. Street Smarts...yeah it was on for five years, but in crappy timeslots. This show deserved more publicity, even if it was mostly Jay Leno's "Jaywalking" segment.

*Seen only one episode

TLEberle · « **Reply #413 on:** September 14, 2006, 02:59:39 AM »

[quote name=\'Brandon Brooks\' post=\'131464\' date=\'Sep 13 2006, 09:23 PM\']
I strongly disagree. It's looks good to be the good guy. There's nothing wrong with giving the contestant the benefit of the doubt, because game shows' sole purpose is to give prizes away. I'm sure people could come up with many situations when Bill Cullen gave contestants prizes they probably didn't deserve because of a goof he made.

I'm not saying Barker is the best ever, cause he ain't. However, I will fervently defend him in that he is good at what he does. I think you're wrong when you say Price is a "sinking ship."
[/quote]I would say that he was good at what he does. If TPIR were to have gone off the air in, say, 1994, I would rank the show much higher. I suppose my discontent is with the way the show is run, and Bob does have something to do with that, in his Executive Producer role. The fact that the show looks the same every single day (heaven forbid they stage a car reveal differently than straight on).

I think TPIR was best when it had some competition. People will watch it now because if you want a game show in the early morning, it's Price or nothin'. Back in the good ol' days, you had two other networks running game shows to pick from. Price has no reason to improve, because there's no competition. And as long as Price turns over another calendar year, with another Most Popular Show in Daytime award to feed Mr. Barker's ego, the show will be the same every day.

[quote name=\'Brandon Brooks\' post=\'131472\' date=\'Sep 13 2006, 10:13 PM\']There has to be some sort of challenge. But I guess my point is that no one's perfect. The majority of the time on Price, you earn what you win. If someone happens to get lucky against the house of Barker, so be it. That alone doesn't make him a crappy host.[/quote]I don't think I'd call him 'crappy,' because he was really good in the role for about 20 years. But my point about that was that instead of enforcing the rules, or setting up the game again with a different prize, it's just easier for him to say "You win, hooray!" (cf: the "Flip Flop" cheater. If you say, Do Not Push the Big Red Button of Doom, you must manipulate the price, then if you do indeed push the big red button, you shouldn't win. I realize I'm harsher than most, and why I would be truly awful as TPIR host, but that's my view. I appreciate your view as well, I just don't happen to agree)

DrBear · « **Reply #414 on:** September 14, 2006, 07:06:31 AM »

I always thought the sole purpose of a game show was to make money for the producers.

Clay Zambo · « **Reply #415 on:** September 14, 2006, 08:02:47 AM »

[quote name=\'cweaver\' post=\'131442\' date=\'Sep 13 2006, 09:44 PM\']
8. Pyramid (perhaps the most Biblically symmetrical game show)
[/quote]

"Biblically symmetrical?" Que?

Brandon Brooks · « **Reply #416 on:** September 14, 2006, 08:24:34 AM »

[quote name=\'Clay Zambo\' post=\'131486\' date=\'Sep 14 2006, 07:02 AM\']
[quote name=\'cweaver\' post=\'131442\' date=\'Sep 13 2006, 09:44 PM\']
8. Pyramid (perhaps the most Biblically symmetrical game show)
[/quote]

"Biblically symmetrical?" Que?
[/quote]
Read: Best EVER.

:-)

Ian Wallis · « **Reply #417 on:** September 14, 2006, 09:08:05 AM »

Quote

On the other hand, Bob Barker hosting the show for 35 years, still drawing in viewers at his age and with all those years under his belt, having broken a longevity record set by, uh, Bob Barker...now that is an accomplishment. It would seem to be a lock for he and Bill Cullen to be in the top two.

That's why this list would be so interesting. I had someone else in mind for No. 2 - and no, it wasn't Patrick Wayne!! In fact, I wouldn't even consider Barker to be in the top 5.

cweaver · « **Reply #418 on:** September 14, 2006, 09:12:23 AM »

[quote name=\'Clay Zambo\' post=\'131486\' date=\'Sep 14 2006, 07:02 AM\']
[quote name=\'cweaver\' post=\'131442\' date=\'Sep 13 2006, 09:44 PM\']
8. Pyramid (perhaps the most Biblically symmetrical game show)
[/quote]

"Biblically symmetrical?" Que?
[/quote]

Just that it appears based on patterns (the number 7, for instance, and pyramid structure) that are heavily discussed in the Bible and in historical texts of the period. Don't know that they meant for most people to pick up on that to that extent but it did flow together very smoothly.

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #419 on:** September 14, 2006, 09:32:17 AM »

[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' post=\'131489\' date=\'Sep 14 2006, 09:08 AM\']That's why this list would be so interesting. I had someone else in mind for No. 2 - and no, it wasn't Patrick Wayne!! In fact, I wouldn't even consider Barker to be in the top 5.[/quote]
As hard a time as some people had figuring out the criteria for ranking shows, I think ranking hosts might be even trickier and more subjective. For one thing, I think there's much less difference between a bunch of them at the top. Secondly, how much credit do you give a host for a show's longevity? Barker's reputation as a host, after all, is based on exactly two series, and for most of you guys, even Truth or Consequences is ancient history. Among the famous ones, only Sajak has less of a resume. How do you compare them to a Eubanks, Martindale or even Trebek who've hosted multiple but less-successful shows? A bunch of us think Kevin O'Connell was great, but how do you put his single, short-lived effort into context when Patrick Wayne and Rolf Benirschke each lasted longer?

Could be fun...