Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: lets pretend  (Read 16201 times)

toetyper

  • Member
  • Posts: 317
lets pretend
« on: March 03, 2010, 10:04:10 AM »
youre a syndication executive; your job is to  screen pilots of game shows and make comments about them; you get a dvd of a new show called 'wheel of fortune'

the show you see is the evolved show that the  real you sees every night.

you have to  write a paragraph or 2 and give constructive criticism.
.
G

Hastin

  • Member
  • Posts: 498
lets pretend
« Reply #1 on: March 03, 2010, 11:39:09 AM »
This sounds like more like a writing assignment than a discussion post.

My Thoughts:

That Pat guy might be good for a late-night gig.
-Hastin :)

Jeremy Nelson

  • Member
  • Posts: 2921
lets pretend
« Reply #2 on: March 03, 2010, 11:46:43 AM »
Theme song is uninspired, and there's too much on the wheel. Done.
Fun Fact To Make You Feel Old: Syndicated Jeopeardy has allowed champs to play until they lose longer than they've retired them after five days.

clemon79

  • Member
  • Posts: 27693
  • Director of Suck Consolidation
lets pretend
« Reply #3 on: March 03, 2010, 11:59:27 AM »
[quote name=\'Hastin\' post=\'236746\' date=\'Mar 3 2010, 08:39 AM\']This sounds like more like a writing assignment than a discussion post.[/quote]
Indeed. I suggest toetyper go first.
Chris Lemon, King Fool, Director of Suck Consolidation
http://fredsmythe.com
Email: clemon79@outlook.com  |  Skype: FredSmythe

Otm Shank

  • Member
  • Posts: 453
lets pretend
« Reply #4 on: March 03, 2010, 02:22:33 PM »
Two paragraphs? In this day and age, lucky if you get 2 sentences. And they are:

1) What exactly is the purpose of that "old woman" to the production?

2) How can we incorporate more "stunts" into the show -- i.e., risk all your front game winnings for the bonus, eliminate one contestant at the end of each act, having contestants perform additional "challenges", drop sloppy things on contestants that hit bankrupt -- to broaden its appeal?

(Remember, you asked for a television executive's POV.)

tomobrien

  • Member
  • Posts: 319
lets pretend
« Reply #5 on: March 03, 2010, 02:30:04 PM »
Put all those letters on a crossword grid.
Give definitions for clues.
Have a "spoiler" who can win everything with one answer.
Give away prizes of trips to Pismo Beach.
Get a soap actor to host.

Sounds like a sure-fire hit.

Don Howard

  • Member
  • Posts: 5729
lets pretend
« Reply #6 on: March 03, 2010, 02:34:20 PM »
1.) The audience isn't loud enough.
2.) Does this show really need an announcer?

Matt Ottinger

  • Member
  • Posts: 13018
lets pretend
« Reply #7 on: March 03, 2010, 03:00:02 PM »
One of the things Sajak used to say in interviews about the show's accessibility is how easily someone who'd never seen it before could immediately understand what was going on.  Despite all the flash and spice that some purists dislike, that's still more or less true today.  It's also got better play-at-home value for the masses than any other show on television, and it's slickly produced.

So yeah, except for the fact that you've got a 64-year-old host and a 53-year-old model, I think an executive would be crazy not to see what a great show this is.
This has been another installment of Matt Ottinger's Masters of the Obvious.
Stay tuned for all the obsessive-compulsive fun of Words Have Meanings.

Mike Tennant

  • Member
  • Posts: 989
lets pretend
« Reply #8 on: March 03, 2010, 04:08:44 PM »
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'236769\' date=\'Mar 3 2010, 03:00 PM\']One of the things Sajak used to say in interviews about the show's accessibility is how easily someone who'd never seen it before could immediately understand what was going on.[/quote]Couldn't this be said for most successful game shows?  It's the old Goodson rule of being able to describe the concept in a sentence (or something to that effect).  While we may have our cult favorites like Whew!, the average viewer can't keep up with all those rules, especially if he tuned in after the host's explanation.

chris319

  • Co-Executive Producer
  • Posts: 10650
lets pretend
« Reply #9 on: March 03, 2010, 04:10:32 PM »
Quote
One of the things Sajak used to say in interviews about the show's accessibility is how easily someone who'd never seen it before could immediately understand what was going on.
It's HANGMAN for goodness' sake. Remember the mid-80s when there were four versions of hangman on the air?

1. Wheel of Fortune

2. Scrabble

3. Million-Dollar Chance of a Lifetime

4. Headline Chasers

Matt Ottinger

  • Member
  • Posts: 13018
lets pretend
« Reply #10 on: March 03, 2010, 05:22:09 PM »
[quote name=\'Mike Tennant\' post=\'236773\' date=\'Mar 3 2010, 04:08 PM\']While we may have our cult favorites like Whew!, the average viewer can't keep up with all those rules, especially if he tuned in after the host's explanation.[/quote]
My favorite along those lines are the Three on a Match episodes we have.  It's late in the run, and Bill doesn't explain a thing.  Show that to friends who've never seen the game before, and watch their heads asplode.
This has been another installment of Matt Ottinger's Masters of the Obvious.
Stay tuned for all the obsessive-compulsive fun of Words Have Meanings.

SFQuizKid

  • Member
  • Posts: 90
lets pretend
« Reply #11 on: March 03, 2010, 05:34:47 PM »
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'236780\' date=\'Mar 3 2010, 02:22 PM\']My favorite along those lines are the Three on a Match episodes we have.  It's late in the run, and Bill doesn't explain a thing.  Show that to friends who've never seen the game before, and watch their heads asplode.[/quote]
Take a look at this article from the September 8, 1972 Life Magazine:  "Three on a Match is so complicated--their tic-tac-toe had to go into systems analysis to figure out why it hates itself..."  Funny, as a child I had no trouble figuring out Three on a Match.  Explaining it to my gramdmother was a completely different matter.

catkins522

  • Member
  • Posts: 541
lets pretend
« Reply #12 on: March 03, 2010, 07:36:18 PM »
Chuck left the Wheel and we're are hiring a weatherman?!?!?

Charles Atkins
-----------

Bigger and better....in HD!!!!

WarioBarker

  • Member
  • Posts: 1920
  • Mind Wanderer
lets pretend
« Reply #13 on: March 03, 2010, 11:12:55 PM »
WARNING: This is a long post, and is meant only in fun -- you say "Let's Pretend", I say "... Okay."

youre a syndication executive; your job is to screen pilots of game shows and make comments about them; you get a dvd of a new show called 'wheel of fortune'

the show you see is the evolved show that the real you sees every night.

you have to write a paragraph or 2 and give constructive criticism.
As an executive with many years in the television business, I must admit that I have never seen a show quite like Wheel of Fortune. While the format is simple and easy to understand (I found myself playing along with the puzzles), I have a few issues I'd like to bring up:

* Personnel -- Main emcee Pat Sajak appears to be somewhat bored, as if he would rather be elsewhere. He appears to be "going through the motions", as it were. Assistant Vanna White acts fake as well, with what appears to be too much makeup and a trivial use (the puzzle-board is electronic). Announcer Charlie O'Donnell is a veteran of the field, but his contributions here sound almost as if they were pre-recorded for repetition where necessary.

* Set -- Very sparse, with not much in the way of decorations. The large wheel is colorful and nice to look at, although the notes sent with the DVD claimed that the green center was at one point to be used for insert shots during the credits.

* Budget -- Appears to be focused on trips, with the rest being cash. The notes showed beautiful, full-color pictures of the wheel's layouts for each round -- I noticed that 1) Top dollar is always next to a "Bankrupt" space, and 2) No amounts, outside of top dollar, use four digits. In addition, I noticed that items picked up from the wheel during gameplay (such as the trip in Round 1) were not returned to play if they were not won.

* Atmosphere -- Dark and somewhat moody; too many games on the air today use this approach. The constant clapping also got on my nerves after the first three minutes of gameplay. The theme music is extremely generic and immediately forgettable.

* Other --
1) The "Million-Dollar Wedge", according to the notes, is extremely difficult to win; granted, winning such an amount should be difficult, but hitting a "Bankrupt" space after winning the round in which the wedge was picked-up should not lose that wedge (this contradicts the official rules, as detailed in the notes). When figuring in the fact that the wedge is not returned to play if it is lost, this makes the game somewhat anti-climatic.
2) Halfway through the show, the announcer mentioned that the "Spin I.D." winner also received $50,000 cash if they were an active "Sony Card" holder; this seemed unfair to the in-studio contestants, who had far less to win in the main-game portion.
3) The notes claimed that $1,000 was added to the amount landed upon in the "Final Spin" because pre-pilot "tests" had led to several "runaway games". This said, I noticed after the DVD had finished that the lowest amount is $1,300 -- aside from landing on the top amount, this may in turn lead to more "runaway" games.
4) The cost for "buying a Vowel" is $250, which is lower than the wheel's minimum of $300; this invariably led to several "impulse buys", with no emphasis on strategy. The notes stated that an early idea was to use a wedge entitled "Buy A Vowel", but that it was discarded when it had caused problems in pre-pilot tests.
5) The prizes in the Bonus Round are all cash amounts ranging from $25,000 to $50,000 (plus one worth $100,000). The notes stated that the puzzle's difficulty changed according to the budget and the amount landed upon, then implied that this was not true and the difficulty in fact rested entirely upon the current mood of producer Harry Friedman. If the implication is true, then that is a very unfair thing to contestants.

So in summary, while the format is decent, not much else is. I'm sorry, but with the aforementioned flaws I am afraid that we cannot pick up Wheel of Fortune for distribution. As per company policy, we shall retain both the DVD and the notes should we decide to pick up the show at a later date. Thank you for your consideration.
-Daniel J. Lawrence; President, DB Enterprises Inc.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2014, 08:45:39 AM by Dan88 »
The Game Show Forum: beating the **** out of the competition since 2003.

I'm just a mind wanderer, walking in eternity...

TLEberle

  • Member
  • Posts: 15962
  • Rules Constable
lets pretend
« Reply #14 on: March 03, 2010, 11:22:53 PM »
[quote name=\'Dan88\' post=\'236807\' date=\'Mar 3 2010, 08:12 PM\']but with the aforementioned flaws I am afraid that we cannot pick up Wheel Of Fortune for distribution. As per company policy, we shall retain both the DVD and the notes should we decide to pick up the show at a later date. Thank you for your consideration.
-Daniel J. Lawrence; President, DB Enterprises Inc.[/quote]Wow, you'd really pass on Wheel of Fortune.

(Are we assuming that the show is completely new at this point and hasn't been on the air for EIGHT YEARS as a proven daytime winner?
If you didn’t create it, it isn’t your content.