Have Game Shows Jumped the Shark?

[chris319]

we'd be complaining about the crappy synthesized theme to Concentration

If anyone thinks Milton Kaye playing his organ was superior to Edd Kalehoff's music, I admire them for the courage of their convictions.

Some of the shows you mentioned run on GSN to this day and we don't hear complaints. A certain TPIR staffer tells me audiences love that show's "retro technology".

(What show were you referring to about the Radio Shack synthesizer bit?)

Louie Anderson Family Feud. Care to hear my rendition?

Bump - ba - da - bump - ba - da - bump - ba - da - bump - ba - da - bump - ba - da - bump - ba - da - bump
(repeat ad nauseam)

[Robert Hutchinson]

[quote name=\'TheInquisitiveOne\' date=\'Oct 22 2003, 01:42 AM\']The FCC should seriously consider this because the quality and charm of today's game shows have been severely compromised. Yes, we are ad driven. At the same time, however, I deserve some decent television![/quote]
I'm trying very hard not to burst out laughing. Is the "seriously" in that first sentence intended to carry all the way through to the last sentence?

Compare ratings from 20, 30, 40 years ago with ratings today. See all those 30 and 40 shares lots and lots of shows were getting back then? See how, in 2003, getting a 20 share is considered absolutely outstanding? That's cable and the Internet doing its wonderful siphoning. If a show is not significantly cheaper to produce today than it would have been in decades past, and it can't get even half the viewers today that it would've gotten in the past, Where's The Money Going to Come From?

Oh, and regarding the Whoopi Squares episode where only one round was played? That should not be blamed on commercials, but rather on the change to the rules that disallowed default wins even in 5-square-win situations. Take that change away, and that show would've gotten in two rounds, perhaps even part of a third.

[Ian Wallis]

Oh, and regarding the Whoopi Squares episode where only one round was played? That should not be blamed on commercials, but rather on the change to the rules that disallowed default wins even in 5-square-win situations. Take that change away, and that show would've gotten in two rounds, perhaps even part of a third.

To tell you the truth, I like that rule.  Not just because I think it was one of the funniest game show episodes of all time, but because the default rule never made sense to begin with.

If a contestant couldn't win three-in-a-row by default, why could they get a 5-square win by default?  It's still winning the game by default so what difference does it really make?

[dheine1971]

I guess GSN jumped the shark with speedups on some classic game show parts and replacing of fee plugs for 1 more commercial break since 1998. Not to mention the non game show related late night informercials and the 2 hour 3 times a week video games block that's not fitting!

[inturnaround]

Yeah, I too agree that game shows never jumped.

I just don't think it can. It's too wide a genre and something that's proven to time and again rise from the ashes. Just when you think game shows have bitten the dust, you realize that you were foolish and there's always a place for them.

The game show style you see now is temporary. It will forever be attached to this era and, I think, will stay there. Game shows of the future will have their own styles just like game shows of the past.

We're currently in a game show lull sure, but this too shall pass. We will have a new or remade show hit and hopefully it will lead to more quality shows being made. Of course this will also lead to a lot of bad shows being made, too, but since when hasn't that happened?

Do they make them like they used to? Of course not. They don't do anything the way they used to. If they did, Andy Rooney would be out of a job.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'dheine1971\' date=\'Oct 22 2003, 07:06 AM\'] I guess GSN jumped the shark with speedups on some classic game show parts and replacing of fee plugs for 1 more commercial break since 1998. Not to mention the non game show related late night informercials and the 2 hour 3 times a week video games block that's not fitting! [/quote]
 Hey, what do you know, yet another post slamming GSN in a thread discussing the genre as a whole.

[melman1]

[quote name=\'dheine1971\' date=\'Oct 22 2003, 07:06 AM\'] I guess GSN jumped the shark with speedups on some classic game show parts and replacing of fee plugs for 1 more commercial break since 1998. [/quote]
 Will someone please let me know when this guy stops whining about "fee plugs" and speedups here and in the GSN forums.

Fella, please get a clue.  If you want "museum quality" shows, go to the Museum of Broadcasting.

[BrandonFG]

To Chris C., I know I've replied twice already, but I have a question...having worked with G-T and knowing what Goodson knew about his shows what have your honest opinions been on the new Goodson revivals (MG98, Feud99/02, CS01). Other than the obvious, of course, but aside from the new theme and Cuomo set, do you think the actual gameplay is solid enough for Feud to hold up to the Dawson or even Combs eras?

[Dbacksfan12]

[quote name=\'dheine1971\' date=\'Oct 22 2003, 09:06 AM\'] I guess GSN jumped the shark with speedups on some classic game show parts and replacing of fee plugs for 1 more commercial break since 1998. Not to mention the non game show related late night informercials and the 2 hour 3 times a week video games block that's not fitting! [/quote]
 Chris wasn't asking about Gameshow Network.  Matt; Chris; ban this guy, and I'll take you out to eat at Outback.

[BrandonFG]

[quote name=\'dheine1971\' date=\'Oct 22 2003, 09:06 AM\'] I guess GSN jumped the shark with speedups on some classic game show parts and replacing of fee plugs for 1 more commercial break since 1998. Not to mention the non game show related late night informercials and the 2 hour 3 times a week video games block that's not fitting! [/quote]
 Umm...GSN has it's own page over at the JTS site. If you wanna bitch and moan, take it over there.

[calliaume]

In using the term "jump the shark" as it was originally designated (in my mind, when a show had run out of ideas, as illustrated by the Happy Days episode), I don't think individual games "jump the shark" for the most part; either a concept is good or bad to start with.  Concentration was always a good idea, Burt Luddin's Love Buffet was always a bad one.

The industry, in general, is a slave to whatever trend seems to be hottest.  Big-money quizzes that seem easy (with the success of Millionaire)?  Sure, bring 'em on.  Relationship games?  Of course.  Humiliating people by playing them for suckers?  Naturally.  (Side note: it's a great sign that the first episode of the latest Joe Millionaire, which Fox has promoted non-stop for the last few weeks, was a tremendous disappointment Monday, finishing a distant fourth in its time slot and garnering less viewers than Seventh Heaven.)

But that's no different than 30 years ago.  Dan, you bring up a good point about NBC-produced vs. G&T-produced Concentration, but the older version looked -- well, old.  When it came back with Narz at the helm, I was thrilled to see the nifty update.  And, to be honest, I had switched to TPIR at 10:30 in the mornings, because it looked so cool in comparison.  (Also, as I've noted here before, the original Concentration opening played to this nine-year-old's mind like something out of a horror movie.)

If making changes enriches the viewing experience -- witness the renaissance of Hollywood Squares under Winkler/Levitt, for example -- it's a good thing.  If it detracts from the game -- Card Sharks 2001 being the obvious example -- it doesn't.  It takes a little bit of intelligence and ability to go against the grain from the producers to either ride with or against the tide in that regard -- Goodson usually managed to do well in this regard; his successors have not shown the same knack to this point.

(Man, am I on the soap box or what?  Must be the baby-induced sleep deprivation.)

[aaron sica]

[quote name=\'Dsmith\' date=\'Oct 22 2003, 11:24 AM\'] Chris wasn't asking about Gameshow Network.  Matt; Chris; ban this guy, and I'll take you out to eat at Outback. [/quote]
 I stand by Dsmith's side - I am tired of trying to decipher his posts, none of which have ever contributed to any conversation.

He'll take you to Outback, I'll take you BOTH somewhere else the next night after.

[Dan Sadro]

[quote name=\'Dsmith\' date=\'Oct 22 2003, 11:24 AM\'] Matt; Chris; ban this guy, and I'll take you out to eat at Outback. [/quote]
 I'll add a free round of golf, where I work, to the jackpot, cart included.

Some of the shows you mentioned run on GSN to this day and we don't hear complaints.

I think I'm still not being clear enough.  In 1973, nearly every set "looked the same," just like nearly every set "looks the same" now.  In 1973, nearly every game show theme was at least somewhat synthesized, and in 2003, nearly every game show theme is at least somewhat synthesized.  In 1973, many shows relied on inflated prize payouts.  In 2003, many shows rely on inflated prize payouts.  In 1973, the audience to TPiR was brash and annoying in comparison to older, more reserved shows.  In 2003, audiences are brash and annoying in comparison to older shows.  By 1973, producers were changing older formats to modernize the format, and in the last five years, producers are changing older formats to modernize the format (often to fit it into a 19-minute show).

My point is this -- the very things you're complaining about happened thirty years ago, in relative terms.  And that period of time is the beginning of the most vibrant and (debatably) the most interesting period of game shows in history.  And if we existed 30 years ago in similar capacities, we'd be complaing about the changes in game shows, not knowing that games such as Big Showdown, Break the Bank ('76) and Whew were in our near future.

[Matt Ottinger]

In using the term "jump the shark" as it was originally designated (in my mind, when a show had run out of ideas, as illustrated by the Happy Days episode), I don't think individual games "jump the shark" for the most part; either a concept is good or bad to start with.

I hate the whole JTS phenomenon, mostly because so very few people use the term correctly.  Still, I'll take slight exception with my learned friend's comment above.  I believe there is one obvious act-of-desperation, writing-on-the-wall move that would qualify as a game show version of "jumping the shark":  The addition of celebrities to a non-celeb format.  

Hot Potato and Whew! are two examples of games that weren't meant to be celebrity games, but were retro-fitted during the run to awkwardly accomodate stars in a misguided attempt to boost ratings.  In a similar vein, Password All-Stars and -- more recently and famously -- Millionaire had their beginning-of-the-end moments when they relied too heavily on the celeb factor.

Otherwise, I think Curt's right on the money.  The genre typically doesn't lend itself to those defining end-of-the-line moments that other types of shows do.  There are probably isolated examples -- Steve Allen replacing Garry Moore on IGAS might qualify, and certainly Jimmy Kimmel leaving WBSM does -- but generally a show's either "got it" or it doesn't.

[uncamark]

[quote name=\'calliaume\' date=\'Oct 22 2003, 12:26 PM\']In using the term "jump the shark" as it was originally designated (in my mind, when a show had run out of ideas, as illustrated by the Happy Days episode), I don't think individual games "jump the shark" for the most part; either a concept is good or bad to start with.  Concentration was always a good idea, Burt Luddin's Love Buffet was always a bad one.[/quote]
Actually, the basic idea of "Burt Luddin" itself wasn't a bad idea (a "Larry Sanders"-esque sitcom about a game show built around a *real* game show), it was just executed poorly on both sides of the fence--the game and the sitcom.  In fact, nothing shows the dangers of actors trying to improvise dialogue from scenarios like "Burt Luddin" (and to think from watching "Curb Your Enthusiasm" that it's an easy thing to do).

And that could be the malaise we have here--that there are very few people out there who can execute and fine-tune a format the way that many producers did in the old days.  They may have all of the state-of-the-art, computerized bells and whistles, but things simply seem to not be there--and thanks to the huge hit the genre took in the 90s, there isn't the number of younger producers who could've learned from the pros and kept going in the tradition or improved it.  It's interesting that Michael Davies has said that he believes that he's been training a new generation of game show staffers with "WWTBAM"--whether that's a good or bad thing we'll see in time.

The funny thing is that in the comments about the multinationals like Fremantle and Sony taking over the ownership of the formats, the one boutique game/reality packager that has not only survived but thrived in the last decade and not been taken over by a multinational media conglomerate is the one that has always taken the most hits around here--Stone-Stanley.  This is not to say that I love their output (witness this season's "Shop Til You Drop," or "How can you make a bad show even worse?"), but I do have to admire them for being able to stay in there, to keep producing and not get swallowed up by one of the big guys.  Creatively, I would probably have to agree with Randy Amasia when he said once that the worst thing that happened to them was Bob Synes' death--if he had been around long enough to provide more guidance than supervising a kiddie game show, they might've shaped up to be a better packager than they are now.

Of course, after producing "Split Second" for Monty and Stefan, Synes went on to "The Magnificent Marble Machine," so what do I know?