GSF 50 Greatest List - RESULTS THREAD

[Matt Ottinger]

[color=\"#009900\"]35 Lingo (1987-88, 2002-present)[/color][/size]
(856 48/80)(GSN: 16)

Though many (myself included) consider the remake a compromised version of the original, it is GSN's most successful original show, and you can't beat the play-at-home factor.  You knew they had to include it -- but look what we were willing to rank even higher at #32!

[color=\"#009900\"]34 Truth or Consequences (1950-51, 1954-75, 1977-78, 1987-88)[/color][/size]
(864 37/80)(GSN: 44)(TVG: 21)

For years and years, everybody knew Bill Cullen for The Price Is Right and everybody knew Bob Barker for this.  Its historic significance is unmistakable, a 1941 special was the first game show on commercial television.

[color=\"#009900\"]33 The $64,000 Question/The $128,000 Question (1955-58, 1976-78)[/color][/size]
(916 36/80)(GSN: 28)(TVG: 22)

Speaking of historic significance, the biggest and best-remembered of the big-money quizzes did everything from making a star out of Dr. Joyce Brothers to diluting the TV exposure of Edward R Murrow.  That last one may be a bigger crime than the rigging.  The first one too, come to think of it.

[color=\"#009900\"]32 Chain Reaction (1980, 1986-91, present)[/color][/size]
(930 48/80)

We joked that GSN would include the original to promote their new version, then as it turns out, we not only put it in our own Top 50, we ranked it higher than Lingo.  Though the cable run was healthy, the original was yet another "brilliant but cancelled" Stewart offering.

[color=\"#009900\"]31 He Said, She Said/Tattletales (1969-70, 1974-78, 1982-84)[/color]
(934 47/80)(GSN: 43)(TVG: 31)

It's actually quite remarkable today to look back at the enormous success Goodson-Todman had with reworking their old formats for a new audience in the early seventies.  This one may not have reached the heights of Match Game and The Price Is Right, but it worked, in no small part because it was a perfect fit for Convy's talents.

[Jimmy Owen]

[quote name=\'Sonic Whammy\' post=\'130032\' date=\'Sep 1 2006, 01:18 AM\']
Random thought about Go, one that's probably been thought of before.

It might have worked slightly better if it set up like Scrabble did it after they changed their format up a little bit: Make the teams play the SAME set of words (putting one team under the headphones, of course). This way you don't have to claim you got stuck with the junkier words.

I considered the idea that the two packets could be in separate categories, too, but I like the first idea better.

Also might have helped if the four players on the teams were related. That might be just me, though. The show needed a lot of work to me, no matter what.
[/quote]


Same set of words would've killed the play-along for the housewife in the kitchen making lunch for the kids.

Related players would lead to questions like "Where...does...Uncle...Harry...work?"

What I would suggest for a set designer would be to make a G O sign that would double as the playing area for the game.  The sign would raise and lower a la NYSI89.  The teams would then be seated in a semi-circle within the G or the O with the guesser in the middle so instead of jumping to the next chair he or she could swivel the chair to the next questioners.

[The Ol' Guy]

I hear what you're saying, Travis, but again, motion by itself isn't a key to success. One of the things Groucho and Guidel faced from executives who wanted to move You Bet Your Life to TV from radio was "Hey, this is television! You can't have Groucho just sitting in a chair! He has to move around, do his funny walk, whatever!" Groucho's only compromise for tv was to grow a mustache. I love the idea of the alternating clue creating format - I just wasn't comfortable with how it was done on GO. Now Get Rich Quick is another story. Come to think of it...GO might have been a better title for that show. But that's just me....

Chain Letter not make the list?? Unthinkable! :-)

[Chuck Sutton]

Lingo Finished one point ahead of You Bet Your life.  These were two of the last shows I put down. Life at 50 and Lingo two spots higher at 48.  So if I had not voted their order would have switched and Life would have been ahead by one point.

And since I had Truth or Consequences a lot higher,  Life and Lingo would have finished above it without my votes.  Wow just did the math without my 23rd spot for Truth; it would have also fallen one point behind  WWW game.

[DrBear]

T or C - closest I've come to hitting it right (I had it at 35). And for pretty much the reasons give.
64K Question - I had it ranked a bit higher because of its historic significance - and really, it's the same basic idea as WWTBAM - one person facing questions that get higher and higher. The two differences (other than honesty): the lack of specific categories and the lifelines.

Speaking of historic significance, the biggest and best-remembered of the big-money quizzes did everything from making a star out of Dr. Joyce Brothers to diluting the TV exposure of Edward R Murrow.  That last one may be a bigger crime than the rigging.  The first one too, come to think of it.

Chain Reaction ? This one really surprises me, even more than Go. At least I knew Go had some serious fans in this group.

Tattletales I had a bit lower (37) but it's the one all-celebrity game that ever worked for me. Get the right couples on there and it was a lot of fun.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Chuck Sutton\' post=\'130042\' date=\'Sep 1 2006, 12:09 AM\']
Lingo Finished one point ahead of You Bet Your life.  These were two of the last shows I put down. Life at 50 and Lingo two spots higher at 48.  So if I had not voted their order would have switched and Life would have been ahead by one point.
[/quote]
And if I had, it wouldn't have mattered.

See my point?

[Chuck Sutton]

[quote name=\'DrBear\' post=\'130055\' date=\'Sep 1 2006, 09:24 AM\']
64K Question - I had it ranked a bit higher because of its historic significance - and really, it's the same basic idea as WWTBAM - one person facing questions that get higher and higher. The two differences (other than honesty): the lack of specific categories and the lifelines.

[/quote]

The other big differences were the multiple choice and more importantly the ability to see the question before deciding to go on, which really adds to the on air tension and the play at home ability.

The main thing the had in common; they are only traditional game shows to finish #1 for the season in prime time. (Yes, I said "traditional" to exclude Survivor)

[beatlefreak84]

The two differences (other than honesty): the lack of specific categories and the lifelines.

Okay; now, I have a question.  I know that, at the time, everybody assumed that $64K was fixed (and almost everyone still does), but was there any proof that it was fixed?  For example, there was proof that the B-E shows (21, for example) were fixed, and so was Dotto, but I never recall seeing any proof that $64K (or Challenge) was fixed.

I'm just curious because I wonder if the show was actually fixed, or people just assume it was because other like shows were at the time.

Anthony

[Brandon Brooks]

[quote name=\'mmb5\' post=\'129940\' date=\'Aug 31 2006, 10:46 AM\']
I realize I'm in an apparent huge minority here, but why do people like this show?  I cannot stand to watch it for more than one minute without going into convulsions.  The alternating word thing is like fingernails on a chalkboard.  And I can't be the only one thinking this, since it was 75 shows-and-out.

Please convince me where I'm wrong...
[/quote]
I don't know if I can.  Go was simply an awesome game (I ranked it #16).  I love word association games, and I thought this was just a sharp, attention-maintaining game.  Of course, like a previous poster did, I ranked Pyramid at #1 and Password at #3.

[Jimmy Owen]

[quote name=\'beatlefreak84\' post=\'130069\' date=\'Sep 1 2006, 01:19 PM\']

The two differences (other than honesty): the lack of specific categories and the lifelines.

Okay; now, I have a question.  I know that, at the time, everybody assumed that $64K was fixed (and almost everyone still does), but was there any proof that it was fixed?  For example, there was proof that the B-E shows (21, for example) were fixed, and so was Dotto, but I never recall seeing any proof that $64K (or Challenge) was fixed.

I'm just curious because I wonder if the show was actually fixed, or people just assume it was because other like shows were at the time.

Anthony
[/quote]

Steve Carlin on "The American Experience" said that the writers would find out what the contestants knew and tailored the questions accordingly.

[PYLdude]

[quote name=\'Chuck Sutton\' post=\'130042\' date=\'Sep 1 2006, 03:09 AM\']
Lingo Finished one point ahead of You Bet Your life.  These were two of the last shows I put down. Life at 50 and Lingo two spots higher at 48.  So if I had not voted their order would have switched and Life would have been ahead by one point.

And since I had Truth or Consequences a lot higher,  Life and Lingo would have finished above it without my votes.  Wow just did the math without my 23rd spot for Truth; it would have also fallen one point behind  WWW game.
[/quote]

Will you PLEASE stop patting yourself on the back? It's getting extremely annoying.

I had the newer half of the WWW/Challengers in the top 15 on my list. Therefore, I could say that I helped get it to its point. I'd be wrong, but still.

[tomobrien]

[quote name=\'beatlefreak84\' post=\'130069\' date=\'Sep 1 2006, 12:19 PM\']
Okay; now, I have a question.  I know that, at the time, everybody assumed that $64K was fixed (and almost everyone still does), but was there any proof that it was fixed?  For example, there was proof that the B-E shows (21, for example) were fixed, and so was Dotto, but I never recall seeing any proof that $64K (or Challenge) was fixed.

I'm just curious because I wonder if the show was actually fixed, or people just assume it was because other like shows were at the time.

Anthony
[/quote]
Stone and Yohn's book, "Prime Time and Misdemeanors," has a pretty thorough detailing on how the fixing was done for both "Question" and "Challenge," primarily in regard to how contestants were "fed" areas of possible questioning beforehand by the production staffs.  Patty Duke, for example, "had been given the questions and answers for each broadcast of the 'Challenge' by [staff member] Shirley Bernstein in the last warm-up just before the show."

[The Ol' Guy]

From what I understand, many of the people on $64K had no idea they were being manipulated. And maybe all weren't. However, some of the contestants were called before the same committee checking out Twenty-One, and a few of them spoke of either subtle or direct coaching - Patty Duke, Xavier Cugat, and a few non-celebs producers wanted to keep on. $64's stink level was much lower than Twenty-One's. Twenty-One getting all the headlines made other shows suspect, and it appears the networks did their own in-house checking on many of the others. Around that time, many of the shows were winding down in popularity anyway, so I'm guessing that brushing a lot of the quizzes off the schedules made the networks look good, when in reality they were doing a little sooner what they would have wound up doing later.

[cweaver]

[quote name=\'beatlefreak84\' post=\'130069\' date=\'Sep 1 2006, 12:19 PM\']

Okay; now, I have a question.  I know that, at the time, everybody assumed that $64K was fixed (and almost everyone still does), but was there any proof that it was fixed?  For example, there was proof that the B-E shows (21, for example) were fixed, and so was Dotto, but I never recall seeing any proof that $64K (or Challenge) was fixed.
[/quote]

Supposedly at least one contestant from "The $64,000 Question" testified before a grand jury that during his screening, some questions were used that were later used with him on the air.  I've seen at least one source quote some rather embarrassing testimony of some sort from bandleader Xavier Cugat from when he was a contestant on the show.  I don't think culpability against the producers or network was ever proven, but supposedly people close to the show have repeatedly claimed Revlon representatives pressured them to give popular contestants the answers in advance if that's what it took to keep them on the show.

[Jimmy Owen]

The scandals are a reminder that it is a bad idea to let advertisers dictate program content.  The execs who are too young to remember that history "are doomed to repeat it."