Author Topic: Let's Play Crosswords (Read 7067 times)

BrandonFG · « **Reply #30 on:** January 25, 2007, 10:34:24 PM »

[quote name=\'Clay Zambo\' post=\'144537\' date=\'Jan 25 2007, 10:27 PM\']
Still, I'm looking forward to this: seems much more to my liking than Cross-Wits was.
[/quote]
I'm excited as well, maybe because I know Merv is behind it (Click deserves a second chance!), but this show has a lot of potential. Cross-Wits and Scrabble both proved that a crossword-based game show can work if executed correctly.

TLEberle · « **Reply #31 on:** January 26, 2007, 12:20:24 AM »

[quote name=\'davemackey\' post=\'144472\' date=\'Jan 25 2007, 01:07 PM\']The idea of people working together as teammates first, then as opponents, has been done before ("Now You See It").[/quote]Personally, I thought the "turning on your teammates" bit was used to better effect on Trivia Trap. Yeah, everything's nice and fluffy happy, but when the cash turns from $1,000 to $10,000, everyone is out for blood.

Am I the only person who has thought of the problem of how the host will transition from the introduction to the playing of the game? "Let's play 'Let's Play Crosswords!" sounds weird.

clemon79 · « **Reply #32 on:** January 26, 2007, 12:37:10 AM »

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'144557\' date=\'Jan 25 2007, 09:20 PM\']
Am I the only person who has thought of the problem of how the host will transition from the introduction to the playing of the game? "Let's play 'Let's Play Crosswords!" sounds weird.
[/quote]
I'm gonna guess he'll just say "Let's Play Crosswords!"

(I'm further starting to think that "Crosswords" might have been the original working title and that it changed when a legal search turned up rights issues. Strictly a guess, but it's the only way they would go with such a silly title.)

Jimmy Owen · « **Reply #33 on:** January 26, 2007, 02:31:11 AM »

I would have gone with "Word for Word," since he already had a show by that title 40+ years ago. I doubt anyone in the desired demographic (or today's station programming managers) would remember it had been used before.

clemon79 · « **Reply #34 on:** January 26, 2007, 03:24:28 AM »

[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'144566\' date=\'Jan 25 2007, 11:31 PM\']
I would have gone with "Word for Word," since he already had a show by that title 40+ years ago. I doubt anyone in the desired demographic (or today's station programming managers) would remember it had been used before.
[/quote]
I agree, but I dunno that I'd go with that title. Clearly, they want to make sure that the title clearly communicates that it's specifically a crossword puzzle, to bring in fans of crosswords in general. So if you have to break up the word, it's more important to get the "Cross" part in there, I think.

Robert Hutchinson · « **Reply #35 on:** January 26, 2007, 09:21:06 AM »

[quote name=\'Clay Zambo\' post=\'144535\' date=\'Jan 25 2007, 10:27 PM\']
[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' post=\'144500\' date=\'Jan 25 2007, 07:19 PM\']
In the first round of Crosswords, the players are not accomplishing anything towards their ultimate goal[/quote]
Which, sadly, could be said of the first round of lots of games: cf. Family Feud, or even the early part of Jeopardy.[/quote]
It could be said, but it wouldn't be accurate about those two games (not counting any format presided over by Louie Anderson, anyway). The early parts of those games have less importance, yes, but not zero importance. Body Language and Super Password would be two good examples, though.

Neumms · « **Reply #36 on:** January 29, 2007, 12:46:19 PM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'144486\' date=\'Jan 25 2007, 06:31 PM\']
[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'144482\' date=\'Jan 25 2007, 03:19 PM\']
Where, as the network guy once famously said, are the jeopardies?
[/quote]
The show isn't called Jeopardy.

Quote

At least they could ditch the CGI and play on a lit-up dry-erase board and let a hot model write the clues in with magic marker (as in the TPIR crossword showcase).

You're not serious.
[/quote]

Neither was Jeopardy before the guy said it--it was What's the Question? This game is crying out for something to break the monotony, like a Daily Double (but obviously not a Daily Double).

And I am serious. I grant you, it would have to be a hot model with good penmanship.

clemon79 · « **Reply #37 on:** January 29, 2007, 01:01:03 PM »

[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'144822\' date=\'Jan 29 2007, 09:46 AM\']
And I am serious. I grant you, it would have to be a hot model with good penmanship.
[/quote]
Wow.

Robert Hutchinson · « **Reply #38 on:** January 29, 2007, 06:09:37 PM »

If only that presentation had featured some sort of special clue that was worth more money to just one player . . .

JamesVipond · « **Reply #39 on:** January 29, 2007, 06:24:25 PM »

Maybe Merv could add a wagering feature, similar to the Lucky Chance in "Pat Sajak's Lucky Letters" at Big Fish Games (www.bigfishgames.com)?

clemon79 · « **Reply #40 on:** January 29, 2007, 06:56:49 PM »

[quote name=\'JamesVipond\' post=\'144880\' date=\'Jan 29 2007, 03:24 PM\']
Maybe Merv could add a wagering feature, similar to the Lucky Chance in "Pat Sajak's Lucky Letters" at ~~Big Fish Games (www.bigfishgames.com)~~ MSN Games (http://zone.msn.com)?
[/quote]
There, fixed that for you.

/pimpin' ain't easy!