Author Topic: Where do you differ from the norm? (Read 80164 times)

WhammyPower · « **Reply #105 on:** September 09, 2010, 06:30:41 PM »

[quote name=\'gameshowlover87\' post=\'247116\' date=\'Sep 8 2010, 08:41 AM\']-I didn't mind Larry Toffler as host of Finders Keepers (there were some people on another forum who found him to be "the creepiest game show host alive", but provided no examples as to what made him so "creepy").[/quote]
This AND I find Eure creepy.

golden-road · « **Reply #106 on:** September 09, 2010, 07:07:38 PM »

[quote name=\'Mr. Brown\' post=\'247181\' date=\'Sep 9 2010, 01:33 AM\']Louie Anderson wasn't half bad as the host of the Feud.[/quote]

I felt that he was awesome in Fast Money, especially when he had players go up and touch the board to see if they had won.

Phil V · « **Reply #107 on:** September 09, 2010, 11:07:50 PM »

ok, my two cents on this topic:

Although I've become aware to Barker's less, uh, glamorous moments through reading this board, I still prefer him over Drew Carey as host of Price, most likely because I grew up watching Barker. I think he put much more excitement into the show then Carey does.

I enjoyed Trivia Trap. Always thought it was a somewhat unique way of doing a trivia game.

I never knew the theme song to the most recent incarnation of Hollywood Squares is a cover, for lack of a better word, of an actual song.

pyrfan · « **Reply #108 on:** September 10, 2010, 01:30:42 AM »

I have a soft spot in my heart for "The Match Game/Hollywood Squares Hour." Don't get me wrong -- I certainly find the older versions of each to be superior, and I know that the HS portion and its host had their flaws. However, something about the combination of the rockin' theme song, the great intros, the stars' dressier attire, the cool set, the excitement when a contestant picked the 30 and was playing for $30,000 -- I just loved it. I couldn't wait to come home from school to watch it. Aside from 1973-1981 "Pyramid" and the ABC "Password," this is the game I most wish would air reruns on GSN...but will likely never happen.

Brendan

fishbulb · « **Reply #109 on:** September 10, 2010, 07:29:08 AM »

I've never liked Card Sharks. "You have a 5. Is the next card higher or lower?" Well, duh.

I somewhat liked the Joe Garagiola Sale of the Century, and didn't care at all for the later version.

I agree that the sequences that go on too long are unfunny, like "You fool" and "French". Someone mentioned the "September" answer on Feud - that was hilarious in itself, but Dawson dragged it out way too long.

Some have said they're not fond of Bill Cullen based on his '80s work. This is like evaluating Willie Mays based on those last couple of years with the Mets.

Fedya · « **Reply #110 on:** September 10, 2010, 08:09:32 AM »

Quote

I've never liked Card Sharks. "You have a 5. Is the next card higher or lower?" Well, duh.

I like the CS survey questions, and how the contestants BS along the way to giving their answers. Yes, they're just making stuff up, but it's the sort of stuff that leads to better play-at-home value, especially if you're watching with somebody else, where the multiple home viewers can BS together as they argue their way to how many women admit to finding shorter guys a turn-on or whatnot.

Steve Gavazzi · « **Reply #111 on:** September 10, 2010, 09:37:38 AM »

[quote name=\'fishbulb\' post=\'247248\' date=\'Sep 10 2010, 07:29 AM\']I agree that the sequences that go on too long are unfunny, like "You fool" and "French". Someone mentioned the "September" answer on Feud - that was hilarious in itself, but Dawson dragged it out way too long.[/quote]
In all fairness, I don't think that last one was "Dawson dragged it out way too long" so much as "Dawson couldn't stop laughing."

parliboy · « **Reply #112 on:** September 10, 2010, 10:09:27 AM »

[quote name=\'fishbulb\' post=\'247248\' date=\'Sep 10 2010, 06:29 AM\']I've never liked Card Sharks. "You have a 5. Is the next card higher or lower?" Well, duh.[/quote]

It's not a question of whether the card is more likely to be higher or lower. We both know the right way to play that decision. The actual calculated risks of playing the next card (and whether the opponent is playing behind you is big part of this risk, one that players often didn't understand) is an entertaining part of the game for me.

It's a part of the game I didn't appreciate until I got older and wiser (well, older), and it's something that makes me respect the much more complicated choices made by professional casino gamers.

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #113 on:** September 10, 2010, 12:44:38 PM »

[quote name=\'parliboy\' post=\'247257\' date=\'Sep 10 2010, 10:09 AM\']It's not a question of whether the card is more likely to be higher or lower. We both know the right way to play that decision. The actual calculated risks of playing the next card (and whether the opponent is playing behind you is big part of this risk, one that players often didn't understand) is an entertaining part of the game for me.

It's a part of the game I didn't appreciate until I got older and wiser (well, older), and it's something that makes me respect the much more complicated choices made by professional casino gamers.[/quote]
I was going to post something very much like this. Very well put. The decision of whether the next card is higher or lower is the most automatic and least important part of the game, and not everybody sees that.

GameShowGuru · « **Reply #114 on:** September 10, 2010, 12:56:46 PM »

[quote name=\'parliboy\' post=\'247257\' date=\'Sep 10 2010, 10:09 AM\'][quote name=\'fishbulb\' post=\'247248\' date=\'Sep 10 2010, 06:29 AM\']I've never liked Card Sharks. "You have a 5. Is the next card higher or lower?" Well, duh.[/quote]

It's not a question of whether the card is more likely to be higher or lower. We both know the right way to play that decision. The actual calculated risks of playing the next card (and whether the opponent is playing behind you is big part of this risk, one that players often didn't understand) is an entertaining part of the game for me.

It's a part of the game I didn't appreciate until I got older and wiser (well, older), and it's something that makes me respect the much more complicated choices made by professional casino gamers.
[/quote]

Slightly off topic, but worthy of mention:

When I was a kid, I loved Card Sharks (Perry version, the Eubanks version I didn't find nearly as good for some reason) for the high energy excitement factor (theme song, set, Jim Perry's staccato voice and enunciation style, card flipping suspense and the very energetic contestants) so much, I actually remember being asked by a tutor when I was in kindergarten to list three of my favorite game shows and I listed Card Sharks as one of the three. But I digress. Point is, as a kid, I loved CS for the externals (audio and visual excitement factor).

When I saw it again as an adult, I paid more attention to knowing when to go with and against the odds on the cards, and ironically, the part I hated most as a kid I actually really liked as an adult and that was the survey toss-up questions. I would actually try and guess the number of whatever was being surveyed, and half the fun of that was keeping in mind that these questions were as of 1978-81, and that our society's cultural values back then aren't necessarily reflective of society's values today. So I had to guess with that in mind, and believe it or not, my guesses were shockingly accurate; I usually was within 5-10 of the actual number, though there were a number of curveballs thrown my way, but it made me enjoy the show again from another perspective.

Card Sharks is one of those shows that simply isn't intended to be a long running show, but in its classic format will average 3-5 seasons out of its run in any incarnation, which I find to be respectable for a game show.

Ah, 1978 was for me, truly a game show year.

fishbulb · « **Reply #115 on:** September 10, 2010, 06:04:36 PM »

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'247265\' date=\'Sep 10 2010, 09:44 AM\'][quote name=\'parliboy\' post=\'247257\' date=\'Sep 10 2010, 10:09 AM\']It's not a question of whether the card is more likely to be higher or lower. We both know the right way to play that decision. The actual calculated risks of playing the next card (and whether the opponent is playing behind you is big part of this risk, one that players often didn't understand) is an entertaining part of the game for me.

It's a part of the game I didn't appreciate until I got older and wiser (well, older), and it's something that makes me respect the much more complicated choices made by professional casino gamers.[/quote]
I was going to post something very much like this. Very well put. The decision of whether the next card is higher or lower is the most automatic and least important part of the game, and not everybody sees that.
[/quote]

I agree, and I should have acknowledged that there's more to the game. It's just that I don't like those parts either, and I really dislike both Jim Perry and Bob Eubanks. Which is where I diverge from the pack, I think.
Maybe if they'd made the higher/lower part truly automatic, it wouldn't have looked so silly.

colonial · « **Reply #116 on:** September 10, 2010, 10:10:13 PM »

I liked the John Davidson version of "Hollywood Squares." Davidson wasn't everyone's cup of tea, but I thought he played circus ringmaster well, and he had a great rapport with the panelists. I thought the car bonus game was exciting, and I remember being crushed that I wouldn't be able to attend the Radio City Music Hall tapings due to visiting relatives (lived about an hour from NYC during that time). Three or four of my junior high classmates attended one of the tapings and, through them, learned a few things about how game show TV tapings worked.

I liked the Pat Finn version of TJW. It was definitely not the Barry/Cullen game, but I thought Finn TJW was a challenging, hard quiz -- much harder than what I remember from Barry/Cullen.

I never cared much for Monty Hall as a host. Never got into LMAD, and I thought Hall was the weak link on the 80s version of "Split Second".

I can watch the original PYL from time to time, but I couldn't get into it the way others did. Usually I changed the channel or did something else after "Pyramid" ended.

JD

Blanquepage · « **Reply #117 on:** September 11, 2010, 02:08:28 AM »

The current WoF closing theme is my favorite of them all. Never did care at all for the hosting of Bert Convy and I thought Regis was a terrible host for WWTBAM.

--Jamie

Jeremy Nelson · « **Reply #118 on:** September 11, 2010, 12:49:15 PM »

[quote name=\'MSTieScott\' post=\'247138\' date=\'Sep 8 2010, 01:39 PM\']I can understand why people don't like "Supermarket Sweep" and "Legends of the Hidden Temple." I like both of those shows, but I still can't come up with an explanation as to why.[/quote]
Legends was a great show. Stone Stanley definitely made better kids shows than adult shows. Legends is easily, for me, in my Top 3 kids game shows.

[quote name=\'Dan88\' post=\'247159\' date=\'Sep 8 2010, 06:15 PM\']* That Pat and Vanna have hosted together since the show's 1981 debut on NBC, which is not only at least three kinds of wrong but completely rules out any possibility of other hosts or hostesses.[/quote]
For someone to complain about Wheel's "history" the way you did and not get the dates right yourself...1981? By the way, how do you calculate three different types of wrong?

That being said, I think game shows parallel wrestling in that a lot of the top guys (and gals) take so long to retire that it's tough for the next generation to get a fair crack before they get too old. That leads to a lot of "revolving door" personnel in the generation waiting to get their shot. I mean, in the 80s, most game shows were hosted by vets, and the only new host to come out of the decade having made any headway was Sajak. Of course, he inherited a show that was already doing well (unlike Rafferty and Davidson, who had to hope that people would spring for the revivals of their respective shows). Hosts and hostesses won't be ruled out, but the longer you keep someone in a job, the harder it is for viewers to accept a new person. With a show like Wheel, though, it's not like they're fighting for better syndication spots and struggling to keep a 2.0 rating. They'll be just fine when it comes time to retire their dynamic duo (and I'm hoping they do it by syndie season 30).

Pat and Vanna, to me, are more expendable than Alex Trebek is.

BrandonFG · « **Reply #119 on:** September 11, 2010, 12:56:12 PM »

[quote name=\'Jeremy Nelson\' post=\'247304\' date=\'Sep 11 2010, 12:49 PM\'][quote name=\'Dan88\' post=\'247159\' date=\'Sep 8 2010, 06:15 PM\']* That Pat and Vanna have hosted together since the show's 1981 debut on NBC, which is not only at least three kinds of wrong but completely rules out any possibility of other hosts or hostesses.[/quote]
For someone to complain about Wheel's "history" the way you did and not get the dates right yourself...1981? By the way, how do you calculate three different types of wrong?
[/quote]
I had to re-read that quote a few times myself (both when originally made and just now), but I think Dan's referring to Harry Friedman apparently telling Robin Leach that Pat and Vanna have worked together since 1981.

And honestly, it's not the worst error in the world, considering it's only a year off. So Harry missed it by a year, it's not like he's being quizzed on the show's history.