The Worst Of The Bunch...

[TLEberle]

[quote name=\'JakeT\' post=\'228127\' date=\'Oct 9 2009, 11:05 AM\']Now there's something here *I* dont' get...

You say that you only saw CS'01 once or twice (in lovely fuzzy UHF - I mean, it must have been nearly unwatchable if that is what made it one of the stated factors for you only being able to see one or two episodes in total).[/quote] KTZZ was channel 22 back when CS was on. That qualfies as UHF, right? And I was only able to see an episode or two because it was on at one or two in the afternoon, and I worked after school. And I think the only time I was able to see it would have been the Friday after Thanksgiving, or some such. Plus the fact that I backed into it. There was almost no advertising to be seen.

position to compare the revival to the previous incarnations and just how it stacked up.

But we're not comparing how it stacked up. That's another thread. I do not believe in assigning penalty points to a show because it happens to be an inferior revival of a show that is beloved by many.

If you're comparing Fremantle shows, you compare Fremantle shows. If you believe that Card Sharks 2001 was the awfulest of the lot, then I have no beef with you. I don't think that "worst Fremantle show" is a one horse race, however. Even if you take Temptation or Whammy by themselves and not just as revivals, I think either one is worse than Card Sharks.

[JMFabiano]

[quote name=\'jalman\' post=\'228130\' date=\'Oct 9 2009, 02:27 PM\'][quote name=\'NicholasM79\' post=\'228129\' date=\'Oct 9 2009, 02:23 PM\']

Pearson Television: 100%, Match Game '98.

Agreed on MG '98.  100% never made it to air in this country.
[/quote]
Yes it did.  Casey Kasem was the Disembodied Voice Emcee. Twas boring.
[/quote]

It was ****ing PONDEROUS!

[JakeT]

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'228245\' date=\'Oct 10 2009, 10:17 PM\'][quote name=\'JakeT\' post=\'228127\' date=\'Oct 9 2009, 11:05 AM\']position to compare the revival to the previous incarnations and just how it stacked up.[/quote] But we're not comparing how it stacked up. That's another thread. I do not believe in assigning penalty points to a show because it happens to be an inferior revival of a show that is beloved by many.

If you're comparing Fremantle shows, you compare Fremantle shows. If you believe that Card Sharks 2001 was the awfulest of the lot, then I have no beef with you. I don't think that "worst Fremantle show" is a one horse race, however. Even if you take Temptation or Whammy by themselves and not just as revivals, I think either one is worse than Card Sharks.
[/quote]

Let me first say that if I came across as harsh and/or bitchy in my original reply, well, that's just me these day, it seems (heheheh) but I still wanna offer up my apologies to all for anything I said that mighta pushed unnecessary buttons or crossed unnecessary lines...

ANYWAY, I guess that if CS'01 can't properly be compared to previous versions due to '01 being Fremantle and others being MG-BT/MGP, I'm willing to give ya that.  However, I appreciate ya helping me to reinforce my original opinion of just how crappy CS'01 was, whether it was a revival or a whole new game standing on its own merits.  Even judging it on its own, for me, it falls apart in so many places.  For the most part, there is very little main game structure, leaving me wondering which part of the gameplay was supposed to be seen as the "main" focus and to have carried the most weight towards a player's success.  It all just seemed really rushed to me (maybe the "whooosh" effect when playing the cards didn't help that) so I found myself asking, "is it a card game with not-so-funny video clips thrown in" or "is it a new not-so-funny video clips game with a bit of card play thrown in"?  Bottom line is that I really can't recall particularily enjoying any given episode and I believe I did see every episode aired (yes, I used to often watch shows that I didn't necessarily like in hopes they'd grow on me).  

When comparing CS'01 to other Fremantle shows exclusively, I still rank it the top stinkeroo...while I'm no great fan of "Whammy", I don't think it is all that bad and I believe the reason I don't care as much for it is that it "feels" like cable" to be as opposed to how PYL had that "CBS feeling", i.e. Whammy felt cheaper but the game still seemed more or less in tact.    As for "Temptation", I must admit that I've probably made a point of not watching any more eps of it than I have because I do believe that the more "Temptation" I watch, the more my great memories of the original "$otC" would potentially be tainted.  And although I believe that there was a better underlying game with "Temptation" than CS'01, "T" was wrecked by the careless execution of it from all angles.  

So, while I still hold CS'01 up as Fremantle's greatest debacle, I must admit that it probably wouldn't take that much effort for "Temptation" to take that place in my mind...ya just never know, I guess...

Jake

[BrandonFG]

[quote name=\'JakeT\' post=\'228463\' date=\'Oct 13 2009, 08:15 PM\']And although I believe that there was a better underlying game with "Temptation" than CS'01, "T" was wrecked by the careless execution of it from all angles.[/quote]
And I think that's why I have such disdain for Fremantle. Just about everything they do is horribly and carelessly executed. Quality be damned, as long as those involved get a paycheck, no one really cares. Changes are made just to make changes (Chip Clips, Double Whammies), and corners are cut out of cheapness (Temptation Dollars, solo Big Deals), and you end up with cookie-cutter game shows, compared to just 15 years ago, when it looked like the Goodson Production company actually gave a damn about what they were doing.

I'm not asking Fremantle to appease us exclusively as fans. I'm asking them to actually do a competent job, and figure out why, in 11 years, you've had seven new game show revivals (MG98, FF99, TTTT00, CS01, Whammy!, Temptation, and LMaD), only three saw a second season, and two of those three were canceled after season two.

[Game Show Man]

[quote name=\'Kaos\' post=\'227607\' date=\'Oct 4 2009, 12:57 AM\']They could have at least let "Cookie" (Tom Masterson, reprising his role from the computer games) host it via voice over.[/quote]

Minor correction:  "Cookie" Masterson is the character's name.  The guy providing the voice is Tom Gottlieb, brother (?) of YDKJ creator Harry Gottlieb, who also provided the voice of original host Nate Shapiro.

Tom has since gone on to do other VO work, particularly on the syndie/cable sports blooper show Whacked Out Sports.

[JakeT]

[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'228464\' date=\'Oct 13 2009, 07:45 PM\']I'm not asking Fremantle to appease us exclusively as fans. I'm asking them to actually do a competent job, and figure out why, in 11 years, you've had seven new game show revivals (MG98, FF99, TTTT00, CS01, Whammy!, Temptation, and LMaD), only three saw a second season, and two of those three were canceled after season two.[/quote]

I absolutely agree with you.  In fact, I'd take it another step or two further and suggest that I kinda expect Fremantle to be more than capable of taking a classic game and completely blowing our minds with their revival.  There's no question that Fremantle has the bucks in pocket to give any game the absolute "supreme" treatment, both in appearance and content.  Fremantle also has the largest and greatest library of past proven games to start from when approaching the relaunch of a classic format.  Finally, while so much of the incredible talent responsible for the creation and then day-to-day production of many of our beloved classics are either no longer living or are long since retired, there are still a large number of very capable and talented people damn near dying for the chance to work in this once-again neglected TV genre and Fremantle could virtually have their pick of those people instead of just throwing in whoever they seemed to have in the past in hopes that someone would be competent.  I truly do believe that game shows are one of those TV genres that really do require having a production team, from initial development through post-production of the near-finished product, that have not only a real love of this genre but a real understanding of what makes it work and what makes a viewer want to tune in day after day...in other words, the kind of people Mark Goodson would be looking to hire if he were still with us today.  

Of course, can we really fault Fremantle?  Just how much creativity and such can we expect from a company whose greatest successes have been "BAYWATCH" (get me a barf bag puleeeze) and "AMERICAN IDOL".  And I can't help but wonder...in the cases of programs in their library that don't look particularily dated, what do you think the odds would be that if aired head-to-head (or at least placed in syndication simulataneously) that older previously aired shows would garner significantly higher ratings than most, if not all, of their more recent offerings?  I personally think the odds might be rather good.  Maybe Fremantle oughta consider putting a package together for syndication called "The Best Of International Game Shows" and see what kind of ratings some of their better semi-recent foreign holdings might do in the current tired syndication market.  I'd be almost certain that they could pull a 1.5 or better with seasons from, say the mid-90s and later, of the Aussie "$ALE OF THE CENTURY" (that is, given decent timeslots).

But nothing I've said here will be considered nor heeded so...sigh...blah blah blah...yak yak yak...

BTW, are they keeping Monty Hall locked in a closet 'cause I surely don't see much, if any, of his touch on this new version...try as Wayne Brady may, even he can't make this version a success in the long term.  Hell, I think he himself said it best on either the first or second aired episode when throwing to commercial, he said, "we're INCHING our way towards the Big Deal"...yup...inching...slowly...creeping...in...that...direction...and...by...t
he...time...we...get...there...no...one...cares...plus...the...one...player...thi
ngy...and...weird...reveal...order...makes...the...baby...Jesus...cry...

But that's just me...

Jake

[TLEberle]

[quote name=\'JakeT\' post=\'228463\' date=\'Oct 13 2009, 05:15 PM\']Let me first say that if I came across as harsh and/or bitchy in my original reply, well, that's just me these day, it seems (heheheh) but I still wanna offer up my apologies to all for anything I said that mighta pushed unnecessary buttons or crossed unnecessary lines...[/quote] No way. You don't owe me anything; and I had a lot of fun crafting my response.

ANYWAY, I guess that if CS'01 can't properly be compared to previous versions due to '01 being Fremantle and others being MG-BT/MGP, I'm willing to give ya that.

It's not that. I'm saying that they shouldn't be compared because they're different. I don't judge Richard Karn's Feud harshly because I enjoy the first two versions; I judge it harshly because it sucks rocks. That's the distinction.

However, I appreciate ya helping me to reinforce my original opinion of just how crappy CS'01 was, whether it was a revival or a whole new game standing on its own merits.

Totally. But then, as we've seen, that seems to be Standard Operating Procedure with Fremantle...

[bpatrick]

Anybody remember a show called "Wedding Party," which aired on
ABC from April to July 1968?  It was produced by Art Stark, who had
been in-studio producer on "Who Do You Trust?" (that show was based
in New York, while executive producer Don Fedderson worked out of LA).
The host was Alan Hamel (Mr. Suzanne Somers) and I'm still not clear as
to whether the show was intended as a talk show or a game show (Stark
was obviously drawing on his "Trust" experience--that show was more talk
than game).  Anyway, engaged couples talked with Hamel about their courtships,
then played a lame game in which each secretly picked a prize and if they matched,
they won it.  That was it.  No competition for "As The World Turns" on CBS or
"Let's Make A Deal," then still on NBC.

[Mr. Brown]

Who the hell produced "The Riddlers"?

Yeah, it never got out of the pilot stage, but that show was an abomination and the production company should be thoroughly scolded for it.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Mr. Brown\' post=\'245542\' date=\'Aug 7 2010, 09:48 PM\']Who the hell produced "The Riddlers"?[/quote]
"Okay, so we'll go down the line, and as each celebrity is introduced, they'll issue a friendly "Hello!" It'll be great, it'll be the next catchphrase. People will be saying "Hello!" to each other on the streets. And while I'm on the subject, do they GET any funnier than Robert Urich? I don't think so! Wait, what?"

[SRIV94]

[quote name=\'Mr. Brown\' post=\'245542\' date=\'Aug 7 2010, 11:48 PM\']Who the hell produced "The Riddlers"?

Yeah, it never got out of the pilot stage, but that show was an abomination and the production company should be thoroughly scolded for it.[/quote]
If the question's rhetorical, skip this answer.

Bob Stewart.

/Dave Letterman was funny, though.  He oughta host some late night show.  Maybe several.

[whewfan]

[quote name=\'NicholasM79\' post=\'227359\' date=\'Oct 1 2009, 02:06 PM\']Goodson/Todman:  What's Going On?[/quote]

The biggest problem with What's Going On was that it was ahead of its time. Technology wasn't perfect... audio would get cut off, video quality seemed substandard. Host Lee Bowman seemed lost and lacked the ease and charm of John Daly and Garry Moore. Some of the outside events were hilarious, others, very dull. The best one was arranging for Jack Benny to pay the check at a restaurant. (If you've heard stories about waiters arguing about who gets to serve Jack Benny, in fear of not getting a tip, it's hysterical)

[whewfan]

[quote name=\'jmangin\' post=\'227360\' date=\'Oct 1 2009, 02:16 PM\']Reg Grundy - Was Small Talk worse than Time Machine?[/quote]

For me, Small Talk was just dull, and kind of stupid. It tried to be Child's Play, but it just wasn't funny. However, it apparently got MG productions attention when the tiebreaker round was a total rip off of the "Hi-Lo" questions on Card Sharks. Wil Shriner didn't help much, as he seemed like a caricature of a game show host, but then again I don't think he did anything that was funny.

I wonder of MG productions also caused Time Machine to change its format from the "solo players play TPIR ripoff games that deal with time periods instead of prices" to a not much better two player format. John Davidson, for me, was somewhat tolerable on Time Machine, better than he was on Pyramid, but not as good as he was on HS for the first 2 seasons.

[whewfan]

[quote name=\'Chief-O\' post=\'227362\' date=\'Oct 1 2009, 02:26 PM\']Bob Stewart-Love Experts[/quote]

I think the obvious problem with Love Experts was that it was a talk show with game show elements, but there was very little if any game. If anyone other than Bill Cullen was hosting, the whole thing would be a wash. One of Bill's many talents was making a game with a weak premise look very good and entertaining to watch.

[whewfan]

Ruckus' biggest problem was that it was almost totally reliant on the host... Amazing Jonathan is a magician/comedian. His antics and boisterous, loud persona overshadowed the contestants. If you've ever seen his act, Amazing Jonathan is pretty funny, but take his act and spread it out over a handful of shows, it just became increasingly less tolerable to watch. I read someplace that Reach for the Stars was not at all the show that Merv Griffin envisioned. The network gave the show a spaceship set (which Merv didn't want) and there were elements of gameplay that Merv didn't like. Merv had similar problems when producing Wheel... he didn't want the shopping format at all, just a series of Hangman puzzles, and Merv got his way in 1987 when he eliminated the shopping format.