Author Topic: Card Sharks Eubanks style (Read 20125 times)

Neumms · « **Reply #45 on:** August 18, 2010, 11:50:52 PM »

[quote name=\'J.R.\' post=\'246087\' date=\'Aug 18 2010, 02:58 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.
[/quote]

I agree. I wonder if it would work to play for the car at the end of every show, instead of right after Money Cards. I'm not sure, but I assume after the last commercial, they only left time for Bob to say "so long for now." Whoever the current champ is hands over their jokers, picks the damn number, then they can say so long. One good thing is that it would give a straddling show something nice at the end.

BrandonFG · « **Reply #46 on:** August 19, 2010, 12:13:05 AM »

[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'246099\' date=\'Aug 18 2010, 11:50 PM\']I agree. I wonder if it would work to play for the car at the end of every show, instead of right after Money Cards. I'm not sure, but I assume after the last commercial, they only left time for Bob to say "so long for now." Whoever the current champ is hands over their jokers, picks the damn number, then they can say so long. One good thing is that it would give a straddling show something nice at the end.[/quote]
Interesting concept, but how would the show be structured? When I read your post, the only logical thing I came up with was what Scrabble did when they added the Bonus Sprint.

Thing is, Scrabble's main game played a lot quicker. With that concept, the only way you could probably fit two maingames, two Money Cards games, and a car game would be if matches only consist of one game. Then maybe the highest Money Cards winner gets to play for the car, which sucks if you're the first player and you BUST. And what about ties?

TLEberle · « **Reply #47 on:** August 19, 2010, 12:16:00 AM »

[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'246101\' date=\'Aug 18 2010, 09:13 PM\']Interesting concept, but how would the show be structured? When I read your post, the only logical thing I came up with was what Scrabble did when they added the Bonus Sprint.[/quote]As loathsome as I find the car game, I understand why they do it. The car gets won maybe one in six playings, and every time it isn't won, the show gets some coin for showing off the car and having Gene Wood read that copy.

Jeremy Nelson · « **Reply #48 on:** August 19, 2010, 12:58:20 AM »

[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'246101\' date=\'Aug 18 2010, 11:13 PM\']Then maybe the highest Money Cards winner gets to play for the car, which sucks if you're the first player and you BUST. And what about ties?[/quote]
..then you put the second set of players in an isolation room, which is what they did on Scrabble since they (eventually) played the same words in Scrabble Sprint. If they tie...well, either let them both play, play one more high/low question, or award the match to the player who had more money going into the Big Bet. I didn't care for the car game much anyways....not to mention I hated its second format. As summed up already, it turns winners into losers, and basically ends the bonus round on a sour note when lost.

I remember Play Your Cards Right made the Big Bet turn for a car if the contestant reached a certain amount on the Money Cards (I think it was $4K). Although it could be exciting, it seemed awkward playing the top row for a car when that's supposed to be the "high risk" area of the bonus round (I believe if you were playing for the car, your cash was safe at that point, rendering the "Big Bet" riskless.

For me, with a show that relies on gambling and winning/losing wads of cash on turns of cards, a car just doesn't fit into that equation in any way, shape or form.

TLEberle · « **Reply #49 on:** August 19, 2010, 01:00:36 AM »

[quote name=\'Jeremy Nelson\' post=\'246106\' date=\'Aug 18 2010, 09:58 PM\']..then you put the second set of players in an isolation room, which is what they did on Scrabble since they (eventually) played the same words in Scrabble Sprint. If they tie...well, either let them both play, play one more high/low question, or award the match to the player who had more money going into the Big Bet.[/quote]"Let's bring out our winners for a chance to win the car. Everyone has a joker for being champ plus jokers scored in the Money Cards. If you cover the car card with a joker, you're driving it home. Line up and get to work."

And yes, that's quite a kludge. That should tell you something.

Dbacksfan12 · « **Reply #50 on:** August 19, 2010, 08:30:49 AM »

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'246033\' date=\'Aug 17 2010, 12:48 AM\']

Quote

The set is cleaner and crisper.

I think it is time for another round of Defend That Definition.[/quote]My apologies for getting back to this so late. I never liked the glittery, thick "jumbo" cards that rotated around the set. The '80s set had a more "Vegas" feel to it, with the gold accents on the contestants podium.

Quote

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.

Somewhat in this camp. I prefer the 80s run of FF, LMaD, and CS, but through internet viewing, prefer the 70s runs of "Crosswits", "Split Second", and High Rollers".

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's exactly it.

Ian Wallis · « **Reply #51 on:** August 20, 2010, 07:18:10 PM »

Quote

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

I've always held Marshall's Squares in high regard and adored it as a kid, but in watching many of those shows again, I can see why it didn't do well on GSN.

wdm1219inpenna · « **Reply #52 on:** August 23, 2010, 03:21:59 PM »

Very awesome replies. I still am left to wonder why Mr. Eubanks would tell a losing player "We'll see you again." I know it's something to say, but I think "Thanks for playing" or "Thank you for being here with us" would be much better than "We'll see you again!". No Bob, you won't. Maybe it happened rarely if there was a technical foul up somehow and a losing player was invited back, but 99.9% of the time, you will not see them again.

The Rafferty version annoyed me with the prize cards, and the way he'd say "take a breath" during the Money Cards round almost every time. Overall though I really enjoyed Rafferty on this and on Blockbusters '87 too. He was also good on the show "Real People", which I'm guessing more of us than not on these boards probably has little or no memory of.

SRIV94 · « **Reply #53 on:** August 23, 2010, 04:17:32 PM »

[quote name=\'wdm1219inpenna\' post=\'246280\' date=\'Aug 23 2010, 02:21 PM\']I still am left to wonder why Mr. Eubanks would tell a losing player "We'll see you again."[/quote]
Ah, one of those mysteries of gameshowdom. Like the fourth digit at the top of the FF9x display.

TheLastResort · « **Reply #54 on:** August 23, 2010, 04:40:36 PM »

[quote name=\'wdm1219inpenna\' post=\'246280\' date=\'Aug 23 2010, 03:21 PM\']I still am left to wonder why Mr. Eubanks would tell a losing player "We'll see you again."[/quote]

Maybe they were planning a Tournament of Losers similar to the ones on Super Password from the same era.

SRIV94 · « **Reply #55 on:** August 23, 2010, 05:01:46 PM »

[quote name=\'TheLastResort\' post=\'246282\' date=\'Aug 23 2010, 03:40 PM\'][quote name=\'wdm1219inpenna\' post=\'246280\' date=\'Aug 23 2010, 03:21 PM\']I still am left to wonder why Mr. Eubanks would tell a losing player "We'll see you again."[/quote]

Maybe they were planning a Tournament of Losers similar to the ones on Super Password from the same era.
[/quote]
If memory serves, he says it to the losing contestant on the last episode as well, though. Perhaps it was just a crutch.

clemon79 · « **Reply #56 on:** August 23, 2010, 05:34:03 PM »

[quote name=\'SRIV94\' post=\'246283\' date=\'Aug 23 2010, 02:01 PM\']Perhaps it was just a crutch.[/quote]
I refuse to believe that. Bob Eubanks does not have any crutches.

TimK2003 · « **Reply #57 on:** August 24, 2010, 10:17:53 AM »

[quote name=\'wdm1219inpenna\' post=\'246280\' date=\'Aug 23 2010, 01:21 PM\']Very awesome replies. I still am left to wonder why Mr. Eubanks would tell a losing player "We'll see you again." I know it's something to say, but I think "Thanks for playing" or "Thank you for being here with us" would be much better than "We'll see you again!". No Bob, you won't. Maybe it happened rarely if there was a technical foul up somehow and a losing player was invited back, but 99.9% of the time, you will not see them again.[/quote]

ISTR that Chuck Woolery did that a lot on Love Connection to "the chosen ones" (the ones who were part of the 3 choices) who didn't get the second date. And probably their tapes were already erased/taped over by the time Chuck said to them on air that "...we''ll see you again".

This is an interesting question, as far as what other shows used that "Sure, come back and try again next time you're in town (....NOT!!!)" line.

Ian Wallis · « **Reply #58 on:** August 24, 2010, 01:02:27 PM »

Quote

If memory serves, he says it to the losing contestant on the last episode as well, though.

Yes, but there was also a future contestant plug on that show as well.

\Beats the heck out of me...

Twentington · « **Reply #59 on:** September 03, 2010, 02:18:13 AM »

[quote name=\'SRIV94\' post=\'246281\' date=\'Aug 23 2010, 04:17 PM\'][quote name=\'wdm1219inpenna\' post=\'246280\' date=\'Aug 23 2010, 02:21 PM\']I still am left to wonder why Mr. Eubanks would tell a losing player "We'll see you again."[/quote]
Ah, one of those mysteries of gameshowdom. Like the fourth digit at the top of the FF9x display.
[/quote]

Or the second announcer on Yahtzee.

Hmm. Here's my take.

Perry: Disliked the lack of a "push" rule. Liked everything else. Particularly enjoyed Jim's dramatic card-flips. The DD76 music is one of my 10 favorite game show themes.

Eubanks: Thought Eubanks was too chummy and gabby. He was also very sloppy at turning the cards IMO, just flipping them over so nonchalantly. Not a fan of the educated guess/10 people questions. I agree that the car game was tacked on. The theme music sounds good in the clear, but for some reason it doesn't sound so good when I hear it on the show.

Rafferty: Not quite as good as Perry but he more than held his own.