[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'154882\' date=\'Jun 10 2007, 09:42 PM\']Booster. Game shows were already starting to become big again with syndication, but this was the spark the genre needed. [/quote] Really? If memory serves, the only new product at that point was Match Game, but I might be forgetting something.
If anything, I think D/ND changed games too much, with obnoxious contestants, lame tosses to commercials, and overediting. A lot of the shows look pre-packaged, kinda like most of today's popstars, but that's another rant. If I had to choose between 2000 or 2007, I'd take the former.
Preach on, Brother. If you want to put this another way, what would you rather watch; a TV schedule full of
Millionaire clones, or
Deal/No Deal clones? Is it really a contest? At all?
/if only we had more "1 vs. 100"s...
You kid, but I have found the Australian version totally watchable. (And
Rich List too, which is a bit scary. You don't notice the gaping gameplay holes as much when they fill program time with actual content, I guess)
The problem with the original question is that you can't blame
Millionaire for the other shows, just like you can't blame
Deal for
Show Me the Money. That honor goes to the no-talent assclown producers who thought they could turn straw into gold.
Millionaire was competently produced.
Greed was slapped together in two weeks.
/If you look really close, I think one of the Deal or No Deal producers is named Michael Bolton.
//No, not that Michael Bolton.
///D'oh. I forgot about
Hollywood Squares starting in 1998.
