Author Topic: Blockbusters 1987 (Read 6723 times)

Jimmy Owen · « **Reply #15 on:** May 11, 2010, 03:11:14 PM »

[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'240652\' date=\'May 11 2010, 02:10 PM\']

Quote

The only plausible reason is that paying all those actors and writers of a lame duck soap is quite costly compared to mounting a game show.

Do you know how much it costs to mount a game show? Between the set and the music alone it ain't cheap, and no game show packager is likely to agree to an initial cycle of less than 13 weeks. Cheaper to keep the soap going and write some of the characters out of the story arc.

Quote

I also believe that's the excuse a lot of producers give when their show produced lousy ratings.

Far more likely.
[/quote]
Dick Clark made this statement to Virginia Graham while the show was on the air, though the shows had been "in the can" for some time. As it turned out, there were some repeat weeks of S/S as "John and Leeza" still wasn't ready for air on its scheduled debut date. The stop-gap might also have something to do with the "Santa Barbara" production company. It was a pre-Murdoch New World Production and at that time they were strapped for cash.

Dbacksfan12 · « **Reply #16 on:** May 11, 2010, 05:40:11 PM »

[quote name=\'tyshaun1\' post=\'240627\' date=\'May 10 2010, 10:23 PM\']Besides, there have been plenty of examples of short-lived shows airing slightly more than 13 or 26 weeks, such as Blockbusters '87 which was getting creamed up against Card Sharks by the way[/quote]Which leads me to ask...how much sway did packagers have when it came to time slots? If you have two of your own shows competing against one another, wouldn't it be less expensive to simply air one; thus saving on production costs, salaries, etc.?

Jimmy Owen · « **Reply #17 on:** May 11, 2010, 06:31:02 PM »

[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'240665\' date=\'May 11 2010, 05:40 PM\'][quote name=\'tyshaun1\' post=\'240627\' date=\'May 10 2010, 10:23 PM\']Besides, there have been plenty of examples of short-lived shows airing slightly more than 13 or 26 weeks, such as Blockbusters '87 which was getting creamed up against Card Sharks by the way[/quote]Which leads me to ask...how much sway did packagers have when it came to time slots? If you have two of your own shows competing against one another, wouldn't it be less expensive to simply air one; thus saving on production costs, salaries, etc.?
[/quote]
Generally you would never have a Goodson show competing with a Goodson show. That was easy to accomplish between 63 or so and 72 when CBS had no morning games and between 69 and 78 when there were no Goodson shows on NBC. IIRC, ABC didn't have any Goodson shows in daytime between the end of the orig. TPIR in 65 and Password in 71. When all three networks started doing business with G-T, it became a little harder to avoid competing with themselves. The coincidental (ironic?) thing was that Bill Rafferty was competing in the morning against the daytime version of a show he concurrently hosted in nighttime syndication.

Eric Paddon · « **Reply #18 on:** May 11, 2010, 06:34:32 PM »

[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'240671\' date=\'May 11 2010, 06:31 PM\']Generally you would never have a Goodson show competing with a Goodson show. That was easy to accomplish between 63 or so and 72 when CBS had no morning games and between 69 and 78 when there were no Goodson shows on NBC. IIRC, ABC didn't have any Goodson shows in daytime between the end of the orig. TPIR in 65 and Password in 71. When all three networks started doing business with G-T, it became a little harder to avoid competing with themselves. The coincidental (ironic?) thing was that Bill Rafferty was competing in the morning against the daytime version of a show he concurrently hosted in nighttime syndication.[/quote]

I hadn't realized that 87 BB competed with Eubanks CS which makes the time Bill goofed and thanked the contestants for "two great games of Card Sharks" all the more funny!

chrisholland03 · « **Reply #19 on:** May 12, 2010, 10:46:52 AM »

[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'240652\' date=\'May 11 2010, 01:10 PM\']Do you know how much it costs to mount a game show? Between the set and the music alone it ain't cheap, and no game show packager is likely to agree to an initial cycle of less than 13 weeks. Cheaper to keep the soap going and write some of the characters out of the story arc.[/quote]

True -- but based upon appearances, they didn't exactly break the bank on BB 87's set. The backdrop consisted of a pile of scrap iron topped with Radio Shack strobe lights. And my understanding (subject to error) was that the music package was built as part of Classic Concentration's. The show really did have an appearance of minimal effort by G-T, which certainly lends it purpose as a stop-gap.

Jimmy Owen · « **Reply #20 on:** May 12, 2010, 01:56:55 PM »

I'm pretty sure BB87 was intended to be an open-ended run. Just check the Broadcasting article when the NBC changes were reported. Jake Tauber (who was the VP of game shows for NBC at the time) was fully behind the show and remarked that maybe it had been a mistake to cancel the Cullen version when they did. The ratings must not have been there, however, which led to Classic Concentration.

BrandonFG · « **Reply #21 on:** May 12, 2010, 02:41:10 PM »

[quote name=\'chrisholland03\' post=\'240727\' date=\'May 12 2010, 10:46 AM\']And my understanding (subject to error) was that the music package was built as part of Classic Concentration's.[/quote]
Was BB87's theme a Score composition? I've seen it credited to "Music Design Group", but always thought it was stock music.

NickintheATL · « **Reply #22 on:** May 12, 2010, 06:00:25 PM »

[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'240743\' date=\'May 12 2010, 02:41 PM\'][quote name=\'chrisholland03\' post=\'240727\' date=\'May 12 2010, 10:46 AM\']And my understanding (subject to error) was that the music package was built as part of Classic Concentration's.[/quote]
Was BB87's theme a Score composition? I've seen it credited to "Music Design Group", but always thought it was stock music.
[/quote]

It was stock music. Again, cheaper than getting a full package.

Ian Wallis · « **Reply #23 on:** May 12, 2010, 06:15:29 PM »

Quote

Besides, there have been plenty of examples of short-lived shows airing slightly more than 13 or 26 weeks, such as Blockbusters '87 which was getting creamed up against Card Sharks by the way, presumably because its replacement needed a couple extra weeks of prep time. Time Machine aired 16 weeks, Second Chance aired 19, Hot Potato aired 23 weeks, etc.

There were also a bunch of shows that never even made it to 13 weeks: Blankety Blanks had a short 10-week run in 1975, Spin-Off was on for nine and Bargain Hunters I believe was only on for eight.