Author Topic: Ideas to revive classic game shows (Read 7366 times)

MizzouRah! · « **Reply #15 on:** February 15, 2009, 10:13:50 PM »

I've wondered if a decent amount of viewers would tune in if you brought back Card Sharks(or any other quality 70s or 80s game) with virtually no changes. Keep the same game play, bring in a quality host(not some 80s has been sitcom star), maybe up the dollar value slightly for inflation(NO Million$$). Avoid the caffeine induced contestants, sign raising crazies and families joining them to broadcast their tear jerking stories about how they need the money(Howie: "Your new offer is $200,000" Contestant: "We're unemployed and really need to feed and clothe our 6 children, but Grandma says we can do better...NO DEAL!!"). I know the nets are worried this would only draw the eyes of the blue hairs, but if one would give it a try, it just might work as counter programming to all the court shows, Springers, etc..

TLEberle · « **Reply #16 on:** February 15, 2009, 10:29:16 PM »

[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'208255\' date=\'Feb 15 2009, 06:57 PM\']Or would too much time be left over?[/quote]The problem is that the game has too many variables. You can change the number of cards, or the number of questions, but the unpredictability is what makes the show so interesting.

The only way that I can think to wedge a game of Card Sharks into a single episode is to make the match open-ended. Whoever wins the most games at the horn is the winner. If the horn sounds in the middle of the game, the next question becomes sudden death, and if there's a tie, a single sudden death question gains control of the three card setup.

The other ways require you to edit everything interesting out to fit in eleven trips to the board, or to add filler because the game was over soon.

Sonic Whammy · « **Reply #17 on:** February 16, 2009, 01:50:20 AM »

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'208259\' date=\'Feb 15 2009, 10:29 PM\']
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'208255\' date=\'Feb 15 2009, 06:57 PM\']Or would too much time be left over?[/quote]The problem is that the game has too many variables. You can change the number of cards, or the number of questions, but the unpredictability is what makes the show so interesting.

The only way that I can think to wedge a game of Card Sharks into a single episode is to make the match open-ended. Whoever wins the most games at the horn is the winner. If the horn sounds in the middle of the game, the next question becomes sudden death, and if there's a tie, a single sudden death question gains control of the three card setup.

The other ways require you to edit everything interesting out to fit in eleven trips to the board, or to add filler because the game was over soon.
[/quote]
That, in the nutshell, is about all you can do. It's HS'98, basically. And if you want to alter it a little, do like they did and make 3rd games worth double, then quad, etc. for catch-up purposes. Either way, HS got it right in the last season when they just played it out and let the best 2 out of 3 just happen. It's hard to say that that idea killed HS only because it was on its last legs anyway. Had the straddle been in effect from day 1, you never know.

As far as the Money Cards go, I have no problem with the "one change per line" rule from the 80s. With the push rule, I used to believe the rule should be that only the 2 and ace cannot push so that there is always a risk. I have since changed my rule to allowing the contestant to push on the first two lines, but you cannot push on the Big Bet. That has to be won straight up.

PYLdude · « **Reply #18 on:** February 16, 2009, 02:05:08 AM »

[quote name=\'Sonic Whammy\' post=\'208265\' date=\'Feb 16 2009, 01:50 AM\']
I have since changed my rule to allowing the contestant to push on the first two lines, but you cannot push on the Big Bet. That has to be won straight up.
[/quote]

So what you're saying if I bet all on a deuce or ace on the first two rows and push, I'm fine, but I'm screwed if I do that on top?

Pass. Not really fair.

TLEberle · « **Reply #19 on:** February 16, 2009, 01:32:22 PM »

[quote name=\'Sonic Whammy\' post=\'208265\' date=\'Feb 15 2009, 10:50 PM\']That, in the nutshell, is about all you can do. It's HS'98, basically. And if you want to alter it a little, do like they did and make 3rd games worth double, then quad, etc. for catch-up purposes. [/quote] If I wanted that, that's what I would have said.

I had a problem with single-single-double when it was used on Name That Tune, I had a problem when it was employed on Hollywood Squares the first time. When you're playing the same exact game several times, it seems silly to make later games worth more just "for catch up purposes" The game didn't change, why should the game value change?

Super Password did it fine, because the first game was a practice, then it was two-of-three, and you knew the goal. Family Feud is fine because you have to win the last question, and both teams can see how the game is progressing. But when you're playing to a times-up-horn, allow the player who won more times to keep the championship.

Quote

Either way, HS got it right in the last season when they just played it out and let the best 2 out of 3 just happen. It's hard to say that that idea killed HS only because it was on its last legs anyway. Had the straddle been in effect from day 1, you never know.

I don't think it would have made a lick of difference. Some formats just go bad after a while, and the audience had seen enough. That said, I preferred the best-of-three.

Quote

As far as the Money Cards go, I have no problem with the "one change per line" rule from the 80s. With the push rule, I used to believe the rule should be that only the 2 and ace cannot push so that there is always a risk. I have since changed my rule to allowing the contestant to push on the first two lines, but you cannot push on the Big Bet. That has to be won straight up.

I don't understand why you would choose this change. One, you're changing the rules midstream, which will confuse viewers. Second, you're taking away momentum. Rather than the obvious "All of it higher!" and waiting to see if it'll be a win or a push, you're allowing for the match (and show in this case) to end on a massive downer just because you don't want twos and aces to be foregone conclusions.

Clay Zambo · « **Reply #20 on:** February 16, 2009, 03:58:01 PM »

Quote

The only way that I can think to wedge a game of Card Sharks into a single episode is to make the match open-ended. Whoever wins the most games at the horn is the winner. If the horn sounds in the middle of the game, the next question becomes sudden death, and if there's a tie, a single sudden death question gains control of the three card setup.

The other ways require you to edit everything interesting out to fit in eleven trips to the board, or to add filler because the game was over soon.

Not necessarily.

Say: Each winner of a five-card game plays a mini Money Cards: Start with $100 (or whatever) and have three chances to double it--no betting, just double or not. (I'd propose you don't lose everything if you mis-call a card, just go back to your original stake.)

Or: Win a game, take your choice from a row of cards with hidden dollar amounts (say, $100-1000).

Either way, most cash at the end of the show wins. If the show ends mid-game, each player earns $100/card scored.)

All that said: I'd rather see a 2-out-of-3 match with straddling.

TLEberle · « **Reply #21 on:** February 16, 2009, 04:33:32 PM »

[quote name=\'Clay Zambo\' post=\'208285\' date=\'Feb 16 2009, 12:58 PM\']Not necessarily.

Say: Each winner of a five-card game plays a mini Money Cards: Start with $100 (or whatever) and have three chances to double it--no betting, just double or not. (I'd propose you don't lose everything if you mis-call a card, just go back to your original stake.) [/quote] This isn't bad.

Quote

Or: Win a game, take your choice from a row of cards with hidden dollar amounts (say, $100-1000).

This is just horrible. You're not winning based on how well you did, you're winning based on how lucky you were in a portion of the game that has nothing to do with the main point of the show.

And for that matter, how does either of these setups improve the show at all?

Quote

All that said: I'd rather see a 2-out-of-3 match with straddling.

There is not an ounce of disagreement from me on this point.

Clay Zambo · « **Reply #22 on:** February 16, 2009, 04:53:58 PM »

[quote name='TLEberle' date='Feb 16 2009, 04:33 PM' post='208287']
[quote name='Clay Zambo' post='208285' date='Feb 16 2009, 12:58 PM']Not necessarily.

Say: Each winner of a five-card game plays a mini Money Cards: Start with $100 (or whatever) and have three chances to double it--no betting, just double or not. (I'd propose you don't lose everything if you mis-call a card, just go back to your original stake.) [/quote] This isn't bad.

Quote

Or: Win a game, take your choice from a row of cards with hidden dollar amounts (say, $100-1000).

This is just horrible. You're not winning based on how well you did, you're winning based on how lucky you were in a portion of the game that has nothing to do with the main point of the show. [/quote]

And for that matter, how does either of these setups improve the show at all?

[/quote]

I'm quite confident I'll screw up the quotes if I try to insert my comments, so I'll just leave 'em here.

Of my pitches, on which I spent just a little more thoughtful time than it took to type them, I prefer the mini-money cards deal.

The score-from-a-row-of-cards thing is uninspired, I'll grant. It was an example, though, of another way to score a non-straddling show without playing single-single-double-quad. I will offer, though, that it doesn't have *nothing* to do with the point of the show, which is to be a Card Shark. The Sharkier player would always choose the high value...

How does either of them improve the show? It doesn't. Unless you, as a network exec, say to me, "We'd love to revive Card Sharks but it can't straddle. Fix it, or your show won't get on." I'd say neither proposal (and particularly not the former) *harms* the show. And getting a non-harmed version of Card Sharks is better than another episode of Judge Elroy.

(Edit: Apparently I screwed up the quotes anyway.) Sorry.

TLEberle · « **Reply #23 on:** February 16, 2009, 05:07:21 PM »

[quote name=\'Clay Zambo\' post=\'208290\' date=\'Feb 16 2009, 01:53 PM\']And getting a non-harmed version of Card Sharks is better than another episode of Judge Elroy.[/quote]Are you kidding? That'd RULE.

"Astro! Bring in the plaintiff!"
"ROH-KAY!"

Clay Zambo · « **Reply #24 on:** February 16, 2009, 05:34:11 PM »

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'208291\' date=\'Feb 16 2009, 05:07 PM\']
[quote name=\'Clay Zambo\' post=\'208290\' date=\'Feb 16 2009, 01:53 PM\']And getting a non-harmed version of Card Sharks is better than another episode of Judge Elroy.[/quote]Are you kidding? That'd RULE.

"Astro! Bring in the plaintiff!"
"ROH-KAY!"
[/quote]

Well played. But that's the ONLY court show I'd watch. (I can hear the theme song now: "Jane, his bailiff!")

TLEberle · « **Reply #25 on:** February 16, 2009, 05:42:37 PM »

[quote name=\'Clay Zambo\' post=\'208290\' date=\'Feb 16 2009, 01:53 PM\']Of my pitches, on which I spent just a little more thoughtful time than it took to type them, I prefer the mini-money cards deal.[/quote] I just thought of this now, but you're taking away from the main game to play a secondary bonus, and then to go back to the main game, and then eventually to the Big Horkin' Bonus at the end. If the mini bonus money (100-200-400-800, it sounded like) was totted up to see who won, then at least it would make sense. But I still think that going simple and saying whoever wins the most games plays the big Money Cards at the end is the most elegant solution, and that no tinkering is necessary.

Quote

How does either of them improve the show? It doesn't. Unless you, as a network exec, say to me, "We'd love to revive Card Sharks but it can't straddle. Fix it, or your show won't get on." I'd say neither proposal (and particularly not the former) *harms* the show. And getting a non-harmed version of Card Sharks is better than another episode of Judge Elroy.

The reason I asked that is this: anyone can throw together a slap-dash bunch of ideas and say "Here's my way to bring back Card Sharks for the new generation of willing viewers." At the very least you shouldn't make the game any worse, but every idea that you do tack on to the rules should be really good, because you're making the rule book fatter, and giving the audience more things to keep track of. When I watch a game show, I only have patience to keep track of two or three ancillary rules that may or may not pop up during a show. When people throw in things like "The first half is played this way, the second half is played another way, there's a mini-game in the middle and then a second bonus..." and so on, I'm already looking for something else to watch.

Sodboy13 · « **Reply #26 on:** February 16, 2009, 07:45:58 PM »

I've had a couple thoughts on how to revive CS as a non-straddler rattling around in my brain since 2001-ish, so here goes.

In the main game, winning a survey question is worth $50 or $100. Winning the cards is worth $250 or $500 (therefore, nailing the whole set of questions but blowing the cards will still put you behind in the game.) From Round 3 on, double the money (I know, I know, it's doubling for the sake of doubling) to $100/$200 and $500/$1,000.

Too complicated and/or the doubling is grinding your gears? Fair enough. Play for a flat $250/$500 a game. Most cash when the bell rings goes to the Money Cards. And as a way to keep the front game drama building in blowouts, if one player shuts out the other in the front game, the base values on the Money Cards get doubled.

For either version:

- The bell means an automatic sudden death question to decide the game at hand.
- If the score is tied after that final round, it's a quick 3-card shootout with no questions. Winner of the last game gets the play/pass option. Turning both players' base cards face-up, as was done toward the end of the CBS run, is an option.
- Base values on the Money Cards are $250 and $500, making the almost unreachable perfect score an even $40K (or $80K if you go along with the doubling for the sweep idea.)
- I'd like to see the prize cards in there, but if they aren't, no biggie.
- The hell with the Car Game.

TLEberle · « **Reply #27 on:** February 16, 2009, 07:52:12 PM »

[quote name=\'Sodboy13\' post=\'208307\' date=\'Feb 16 2009, 04:45 PM\']- I'd like to see the prize cards in there, but if they aren't, no biggie.[/quote] It was a nice way to differentiate between the two versions.

Quote

- The hell with the Car Game.

Preach on!

byrd62 · « **Reply #28 on:** February 16, 2009, 08:49:41 PM »

Quote

- The hell with the Car Game.

Either that, or incorporate a car giveaway into the Money Cards. If the contestant has at least, say, $25,000 [out of a possible $80,000, using the $500 and $1000 starters] going into the Big Bet and plays the last card right, the contestant wins the cash and the car.

Clay Zambo · « **Reply #29 on:** February 17, 2009, 10:39:26 AM »

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'208294\' date=\'Feb 16 2009, 05:42 PM\']
If the mini bonus money (100-200-400-800, it sounded like) was totted up to see who won, then at least it would make sense.[/quote]

That's *exactly* what I meant.

The idea was to keep building a little suspense. Of course, the possibility exists that player A wins two games and maxes out the mini-bonus so player B can't mount a comeback in a third (probably truncated) game, but that's not gonna happen every day.