"Show Me The Shatner"

[Steve McClellan]

[quote name=\'Clay Zambo\' date=\'Nov 16 2006, 12:01 AM\'](Which is, of course, the same sentence you'd use to describe "Greed," which Woolery once famously described as being overcomplicated.) [/quote]
In all fairness to Greed, Woolery would probably describe tying his shoes as being overcomplicated.

[chris319]

"Contestants answer questions to win money." (Which is, of course, the same sentence you'd use to describe "Greed,"

as well as

The Joker's Wild
Tic Tac Dough
Twenty One
Blockbusters
Trivia Trap
Jeopardy!
Debt
One Hundred Percent
You Bet Your Life
Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?
1 vs. 100
Win Ben Stein's Money
The $64,000 Question
The $64,000 Challenge
Family Feud

and others too numerous to mention.

[Gromit]

Second show? I guess I missed it.

How will I ever live with myself?

[Unrealtor]

[quote name=\'narzo\' post=\'137915\' date=\'Nov 15 2006, 12:50 AM\']
Mark Goodson said the rules to a good game show should be able to be described in one sentence.  I defy you to do just that with this show...
[/quote]

Not that it hasn't been tried in this thread already...

"Contestants risk big bucks on trivia questions, but don't know the stakes until after they answer."

Endemol's taken it almost unbearably over the top (especially with someone as self-parodying as Shatner as host,) but I actually like the underlying game. Take off three zeros from the prize amounts, replace the dancing girls with envelopes or trilons, get a decent host, and I can see it having a decent, but not lengthy, run back in the '70s. (Hey, if Blank Check made it onto the air, then this certainly could.)

[Ian Wallis]

The issue here isn't that these people are making crappy shows; their job is to make stuff people watch, and they seem to be doing that quite well. The issue is that the sheep are stupid enough to watch it.

That's why I think game shows have entered a new realm and this is it.  When we had that primetime flurry in 1999-2000, at least you could call them "traditional" game shows.  These ones have gone in a whole new direction...and I'm not sure that we're going back.

[TimK2003]

[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' post=\'138028\' date=\'Nov 16 2006, 10:00 AM\']
That's why I think game shows have entered a new realm and this is it.  When we had that primetime flurry in 1999-2000, at least you could call them "traditional" game shows.  These ones have gone in a whole new direction...and I'm not sure that we're going back.
[/quote]

Sure, most of the shows out there are giving money away like it was free balloons for the kids, but as long as the shows with the Goodson-Todman ties (Feud, Price, IGAS -- If it finds another network) remain on the air, you'll still have shows where the gameplay is more important than cash payouts.

The only thing the G-T franchises have done is adjust for inlation.  But then again, the mo' money syndrome is about the only thing Fremantle has yet to tinker with, nae, DESTROY,

And I doubt the makers of TJW'07 are going to give away $100,000 for every natural triple, either.

[Tony]

Now that we've established that Endemol is most decidedly not the next Goodson-Todman (I'll be the first to apologize for ever making that comparison), can anyone think which, if any, of the current game show houses is still a high-quality one?

My nomination is, pending the Joker/Lock hour, the combination of Sony Pictures Television and King World/CBS (Paramount?) Television Distribution.  The reason why I put the two together instead of separately is because I think SPT is incapable of producing a good game show on its own (reference "Pyramid, Osmond"); whether KW/CTD is or not is still up for grabs (Bergeron's Squares - the only game show KW/CTD produced, SPT's minor contribution notwithstanding - was largely hit-or-miss, depending on the season).

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Unrealtor\' post=\'138027\' date=\'Nov 16 2006, 02:57 AM\']
Take off three zeros from the prize amounts, replace the dancing girls with envelopes or trilons, get a decent host, and I can see it having a decent, but not lengthy, run back in the '70s.
[/quote]
You also have a lawsuit on your hands, because what you describe, whether you meant to or not, isn't all THAT far afield from Jackpot!.

[Neumms]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'137844\' date=\'Nov 14 2006, 01:57 PM\']
[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'137837\' date=\'Nov 14 2006, 09:43 AM\']
Kinda like the current "Survivor" contestant who sounds like Alan Alda? Now they might as well just call him Hawkeye.
[/quote]
I'm still waiting for the episode where Jonathan cries. That way, we'll know he directed it.

/obscure?
[/quote]

Damn! They had the letters-from-home reward and his tribe didn't win! That'd be an Emmy for sure!

[Clay Zambo]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'138045\' date=\'Nov 16 2006, 02:00 PM\']
[quote name=\'Unrealtor\' post=\'138027\' date=\'Nov 16 2006, 02:57 AM\']
Take off three zeros from the prize amounts, replace the dancing girls with envelopes or trilons, get a decent host, and I can see it having a decent, but not lengthy, run back in the '70s.
[/quote]
You also have a lawsuit on your hands, because what you describe, whether you meant to or not, isn't all THAT far afield from Jackpot!.
[/quote]

That must explain why SMtM dropped the multiplier--so the "look and feel" police would be thrown off the chase.  

[chris319]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'137989\' date=\'Nov 15 2006, 05:09 PM\']
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'137986\' date=\'Nov 15 2006, 04:28 PM\']
There is a puddle of wet, gooey stuff on the floor that wasn't there a second ago.
[/quote]
In other news, the West L.A. Bed, Bath, and Beyond was found to be missing two towels...
[/quote]
Don't forget the "my tummy hurts" part, which should give you a clue as to the nature of that puddle, NOT what your dirty mind came up with :-P

[Neumms]

[quote name=\'Unrealtor\' post=\'138027\' date=\'Nov 16 2006, 05:57 AM\']
"Contestants risk big bucks on trivia questions, but don't know the stakes until after they answer."

Endemol's taken it almost unbearably over the top (especially with someone as self-parodying as Shatner as host,) but I actually like the underlying game.
[/quote]

Trouble is, they aren't risking anything. They never have the option to quit. I actually like that it's over the top, but that's the only thing interesting about it, and that's not interesting for very long. How can any show get on the air that's as slow as this?

And geez, the guy who thought Amsterdam is in Denmark? Come on.

Yet, if the show went further over the top and became a cross between WWTBAM and The New Treasure Hunt, that could be funny.

[chris319]

Take off three zeros from the prize amounts, replace the dancing girls with envelopes or trilons, get a decent host, and I can see it having a decent, but not lengthy, run back in the '70s.

This would never have sold in the '70s. There is no strategy, no drama, no suspense. In short the game has no substance, in addition to which the material moves at a snail's pace, thus diminishing the opportunity for home-audience play-along.

[Peter Sarrett]

That was the genius of Inquizition-- the game was ALL no-frills play-along.  It would be close to impossible for anyone to cram more gameplay into a half hour than Inquizition did.

[Joe Mello]

[quote name=\'Peter Sarrett\' post=\'138060\' date=\'Nov 16 2006, 04:30 PM\']
That was the genius of Inquizition-- the game was ALL no-frills play-along.  It would be close to impossible for anyone to cram more gameplay into a half hour than Inquizition did.
[/quote]

close to impossible, you say?

Since we're discussing what other show are like this show, I'm sure there are other shows that had a random element determine the value of a question.  Especially in the 70's.

I also thought that all 70's game shows had more than one contestant, unless it was a panel show.