Author Topic: Card Sharks Eubanks style (Read 20117 times)

chris319 · « **Reply #30 on:** August 16, 2010, 09:24:11 PM »

[quote name=\'davemackey\' post=\'245963\' date=\'Aug 16 2010, 04:36 AM\'][quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'245962\' date=\'Aug 16 2010, 06:18 AM\']The CBS Card Sharks music was one of Kalehoff's better works since emerging from his dark period with Goodson and working independently of Score. Can't say MG/HS Hour or Trivia Trap were any great shakes.[/quote]
They actually went through three different mixes of that Kalehoff theme. The first one used when the show went on the air in January 1986 is the one you hear at TVPMM. No horns, just synth, guitar, drums, bells, etc. It was only used for about four or five weeks. The second one was used only for a few weeks and went a little too in-your-face with horns. The third one was used for most of the run and was a happy medium between the other two, adding subtler horns.[/quote]
You remember all this 24 years later? You know, "Zach Mackey" has a nice ring to it.

NickintheATL · « **Reply #31 on:** August 16, 2010, 10:17:51 PM »

[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'246016\' date=\'Aug 16 2010, 09:24 PM\'][quote name=\'davemackey\' post=\'245963\' date=\'Aug 16 2010, 04:36 AM\'][quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'245962\' date=\'Aug 16 2010, 06:18 AM\']The CBS Card Sharks music was one of Kalehoff's better works since emerging from his dark period with Goodson and working independently of Score. Can't say MG/HS Hour or Trivia Trap were any great shakes.[/quote]
They actually went through three different mixes of that Kalehoff theme. The first one used when the show went on the air in January 1986 is the one you hear at TVPMM. No horns, just synth, guitar, drums, bells, etc. It was only used for about four or five weeks. The second one was used only for a few weeks and went a little too in-your-face with horns. The third one was used for most of the run and was a happy medium between the other two, adding subtler horns.[/quote]
You remember all this 24 years later? You know, "Zach Mackey" has a nice ring to it.
[/quote]

I noticed this when GSN was running it back in '01.

/Does this make me Zach Mooneyhan?

LA the DJ · « **Reply #32 on:** August 16, 2010, 10:26:49 PM »

I mostly preferred Eubanks' version to Perry's. Didn't care much for the "out of ten" questions, though. I liked Perry on $ale, but not as much seeing him on CS. However, I never saw Perry's version until long after its original run in repeats on GSN.

Which leads me to wonder how much our opinions differ due to age. I was born in 1980, and generally prefer the shows and hosts of the 80's to their 70's counterparts. Contrary to popular opinion I prefer Combs' Feud to Dawson's and have a certain fondness for Davidson Squares. I'm very much a product of the 80's.

BrandonFG · « **Reply #33 on:** August 16, 2010, 11:04:16 PM »

[quote name=\'LA the DJ\' post=\'246021\' date=\'Aug 16 2010, 10:26 PM\']Which leads me to wonder how much our opinions differ due to age. I was born in 1980, and generally prefer the shows and hosts of the 80's to their 70's counterparts. Contrary to popular opinion I prefer Combs' Feud to Dawson's and have a certain fondness for Davidson Squares. I'm very much a product of the 80's.[/quote]
Interesting. I was born two years after you...as I mentioned, Eubanks was the first version I saw, so I'm more partial to that one, and it could explain why I consider 80s Pyramid the standard as to how a game show should be produced (Perry's $ale is a close second), and why I liked the 80s set so much more than that from NYC. I liked different elements from the two Feuds...

However, gotta disagree a bit with you on Davidson's HSq. Loved it as a kid, but watching it as an adult, it felt like too many inmates running the asylum. That being said, Marshall's version was cool to see on GSN, but was missing something IMO. I thought Bergeron's was the perfect medium for that one.

TLEberle · « **Reply #34 on:** August 16, 2010, 11:08:14 PM »

[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'246024\' date=\'Aug 16 2010, 08:04 PM\']Interesting. I was born two years after you...as I mentioned, Eubanks was the first version I saw, so I'm more partial to that one,[/quote]Do I still get to call you whippersnapper?

I was originally introduced to Card Sharks with the Bob and Bill, so that was my frame of reference. When I see the reruns on GSN of NBC Sharks, I facepalm because that was the version that I think is the better one.

BrandonFG · « **Reply #35 on:** August 16, 2010, 11:41:42 PM »

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'246025\' date=\'Aug 16 2010, 11:08 PM\'][quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'246024\' date=\'Aug 16 2010, 08:04 PM\']Interesting. I was born two years after you...as I mentioned, Eubanks was the first version I saw, so I'm more partial to that one,[/quote]Do I still get to call you whippersnapper?
[/quote]
How about this...I'll get myself the hell off your lawn. ;-)

TLEberle · « **Reply #36 on:** August 16, 2010, 11:52:01 PM »

[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'246029\' date=\'Aug 16 2010, 08:41 PM\']How about this...I'll get myself the hell off your lawn. ;-)[/quote]Naw, come have a seat; there's more than enough of both popcorn and pigeons.

TLEberle · « **Reply #37 on:** August 17, 2010, 01:48:11 AM »

[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'245961\' date=\'Aug 16 2010, 02:55 AM\']While never being a huge fan of Card Sharks(the contestants are a huge turnoff),[/quote] In what way?

Quote

The set is cleaner and crisper.

I think it is time for another round of Defend That Definition.

[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'245994\' date=\'Aug 16 2010, 02:35 PM\']People on Perry's version didn't get too skittish to bet the wad, did they?[/quote]But they did, especially if they had pushed before during the Money Cards. I will never understand this. Even the NBC version corrected this, along with the change of base card on each level, as a way for contestants to win more. After all, it is a game show, and it is fun to watch people winning piles of money.

The game is played with playing cards. Players go into it knowing that luck will be almost all the battle. You can be a wizard at predicting human nature, but if the cards go 3 and then 2, well, you're just hosed. If you want a game that has less to do with luck, I suppose there was either Password Plus or Blockbusters, depending.

BrandonFG · « **Reply #38 on:** August 17, 2010, 02:05:40 AM »

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'246033\' date=\'Aug 17 2010, 01:48 AM\'][quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'245961\' date=\'Aug 16 2010, 02:55 AM\']While never being a huge fan of Card Sharks(the contestants are a huge turnoff),[/quote] In what way?
[/quote]
If Mark and I are on the same page, the contestant rambling as to why 42 second-graders still believe in Santa kinda annoyed me, and I always took it as game filler. That being said, I can't fault the contestants for the design of the game, and IMO, a situation like the following is extremely boring...

JIM/BOB/BILL: Martha, How many second-graders do you think still believe in Santa Claus?
MARTHA: I'll say 42.
J/B/B: Okay, Tom, higher or lower?
TOM: Umm, that's lower.
J/B/B: All right, the number is........51! It was higher!

However, I always groaned a bit when the kids had to speculate about their answer.

TLEberle · « **Reply #39 on:** August 17, 2010, 02:24:16 AM »

But that isn't the contestants being a turnoff, that's the explaining of answers. And Jim would always hurry them along when it was the final segment of the show anyway. Do I care why the number is exactly 42? No. Would I like to see if I think the contestant is terribly off base in the reasoning, or if I agree completely? Yeah, I would.

SRIV94 · « **Reply #40 on:** August 17, 2010, 11:11:41 AM »

One thing that bothered me in the Eubanks version was contestants who seemingly didn't want to freeze even though they had a crappy card staring them in the face (most notably a 6 or 10), and more often than not, they'd miscall the next card (when they could've frozen and potentially change the card by winning the next question)--and I'm talking two or three cards into the line. At least in the Perry version, running the board was a $500 bonus (in 1980-81 only) but that incentive never carried over to Eubanks' version--yet contestants seemingly were playing like it was still there.

Never watched Rafferty's version enough to see if it was the same thing.

chris319 · « **Reply #41 on:** August 17, 2010, 02:03:50 PM »

Quote

/Does this make me Zach Mooneyhan?

Hope that it doesn't.

Fedya · « **Reply #42 on:** August 17, 2010, 08:21:49 PM »

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'246035\' date=\'Aug 17 2010, 02:24 AM\']But that isn't the contestants being a turnoff, that's the explaining of answers. And Jim would always hurry them along when it was the final segment of the show anyway. Do I care why the number is exactly 42? No. Would I like to see if I think the contestant is terribly off base in the reasoning, or if I agree completely? Yeah, I would.[/quote]

If they're not explaining their reasoning, it's just like Power of 10.

To be honest, yes, the contestants are just making it up as they go along. That having been said, I've always liked that the contestants gave their reasoning, no matter how idiotic that reasoning may be: it gives the home viewer a bit more opportunity to play along, and -- especially if you've got somebody watching with you -- the opportunity to argue about whether the contestant is dumb to argue a high number of people will answer the question a certain way, or not (and, by extension, show off when you're closer to the actual answer than the person sitting next to you at home).

BillCullen1 · « **Reply #43 on:** August 18, 2010, 08:54:17 AM »

[quote name=\'SRIV94\' post=\'246049\' date=\'Aug 17 2010, 11:11 AM\']At least in the Perry version, running the board was a $500 bonus (in 1980-81 only) but that incentive never carried over to Eubanks' version--yet contestants seemingly were playing like it was still there.

Never watched Rafferty's version enough to see if it was the same thing.[/quote]

IIRC, Rafferty's version did not have this. But they had prize cards and other things going on. I liked the $500 bonus for running the board. This was only for Games 1 and 2, not Game 3 where there were just three cards.

Eubanks' version and Rafferty's added the 10-member audience question and the car, which was good. Didn't care much for the "educated guess" questions. IIRC, I saw the car on Rafferty's version first, so I thought "Okay, they've done something big here to distinguish this version from Eubanks'." But the cars started showing up on the daytime as well. It gave contestants who bombed out on the Money Cards a shot at redemption.

J.R. · « **Reply #44 on:** August 18, 2010, 03:58:18 PM »

[quote name=\'BillCullen1\' post=\'246075\' date=\'Aug 18 2010, 07:54 AM\']But the cars started showing up on the daytime as well. It gave contestants who bombed out on the Money Cards a shot at redemption.[/quote]
Fair point but, if the contestant did really well on the money cards but bombs out on the car game, it kinda ends the bonus round on a bit of a sour note.

Pretty much why I didn't care for the addition.