Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: 101 Ways to try to reinvent a game show  (Read 29677 times)

BrandonFG

  • Member
  • Posts: 18600
101 Ways to try to reinvent a game show
« Reply #60 on: July 15, 2011, 06:58:43 AM »
Roger, you offer a very interesting insight...my prayers and condolences to you and your family.

I think the difference between most (past) game shows and the shows you listed are that game shows are supposed to be the escape, the feel-good types of shows. I don't mind a down-on-their-luck family get a new car or money to get their lives on track. I just hate the way so many recent shows go about it by milking the faux drama.
"It wasn't like this on Tic Tac Dough...Wink never gave a damn!"

clemon79

  • Member
  • Posts: 27694
  • Director of Suck Consolidation
101 Ways to try to reinvent a game show
« Reply #61 on: July 15, 2011, 01:01:42 PM »
Point and opinion accepted, but if that is the criteria for bad tv, then we shouldn't be watching Criminal Minds,
Law And Order SVU, House, The Biggest Loser, Judge Judy, Dr. Phil, or any network's evening news.
The first three are fictional TV shows, and comparing them to exploitation of the misery of an actual real person in the name of ratings is utterly an apples and oranges situation.

That said, the last four shows you mention are absolutely valid arguments, which is why I don't watch them.
Chris Lemon, King Fool, Director of Suck Consolidation
http://fredsmythe.com
Email: clemon79@outlook.com  |  Skype: FredSmythe

The Ol' Guy

  • Member
  • Posts: 1410
101 Ways to try to reinvent a game show
« Reply #62 on: July 15, 2011, 01:45:35 PM »
My reasons for adding the first three were based on the fact that even though they are fictional, the producers, directors and writers have to generate the same emotional hooks - someone has been seriously hurt, murdered, whatever - often in the darkest kind of way - as a real life situation. If, for example, we watched an episode of Criminal Minds where there has been no tragedy, no personal loss, and the actors are just spending the hour in their offices catching up on e-mails, cleaning their weapons, and talking sports, there wouldn't be much of a reason to watch. If we weren't drawn to the show by the event of a tragedy of some kind, and we know these agents are going to try to give the survivors some sort of closure or justice (relief), there would be no draw. The horror of the acts is the pandering hook, and without the pain, we can't experience the satisfying payoff at the end when the cell door slams shut or the psycho is gunned down. Tragedy is drama. Perhaps I stretched things a bit, but that's where I was coming from. We are drawn to pain and tragedy, if only for the hope that something or someone can or will stop it before it reaches us. The other shows are obvious - people willing to prostitute or shame themselves for 15 minutes of fame, a cash payoff, or hopes Dr. Phil will give them 10 free weeks of rehab. The Biggest Loser is inspiring, but we wouldn't watch if we saw players who only needed to lose 20 pounds instead of 200. They have (pardon the term) guts to parade themselves before us viewers and sharing their shame with us, but they're willing to endure that as we cheer on their determination. I'm off the subject now, but thanks for your thoughts and understanding.

P.S. - "I was thinking Sinbad." You crack me up, Mr. L.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2011, 01:58:14 PM by The Ol' Guy »

clemon79

  • Member
  • Posts: 27694
  • Director of Suck Consolidation
101 Ways to try to reinvent a game show
« Reply #63 on: July 15, 2011, 02:23:09 PM »
If we weren't drawn to the show by the event of a tragedy of some kind, and we know these agents are going to try to give the survivors some sort of closure or justice (relief), there would be no draw.
That's fine, but are you suggesting that because tragedy in general appeals to the prurient nature of people, then fictional and real tragedy are equivalently distasteful? 'Cuz if so, I really couldn't disagree with that opinion more. I certainly agree with that first statement (I'm pretty sure a fellow by the name of Shakespeare figured that out a bunch of years ago), but I would absolutely argue that satisfying that urge in fictional form is FAR FAR superior than parading actual pain and suffering across my TV screen.

(Really, this doesn't seem all that far afield from the violence-in-video-games argument. Would you rather I rip Scorpion's spine out with Raiden or would you rather I take an AK-47 across the street to the cafe here at work? :))
Chris Lemon, King Fool, Director of Suck Consolidation
http://fredsmythe.com
Email: clemon79@outlook.com  |  Skype: FredSmythe

The Ol' Guy

  • Member
  • Posts: 1410
101 Ways to try to reinvent a game show
« Reply #64 on: July 15, 2011, 02:55:38 PM »
Okay. I see your point. I guess if fictional violence were equal to real violence, we'd be equally appalled by Criminal Minds and Nazi concentration camp films. Perhaps it's the hope of justice that is the scripted show's appeal. Thanks.

Oh..and before I answer your question....what's the food and service like at the cafe across the street? You may have grounds for using the rifle.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2011, 05:12:56 PM by The Ol' Guy »

clemon79

  • Member
  • Posts: 27694
  • Director of Suck Consolidation
101 Ways to try to reinvent a game show
« Reply #65 on: July 15, 2011, 03:10:35 PM »
Oh..and before I answer your question....what's the food and service like at the cafe across the street?
Since it's a Microsoft cafe, the service varies depending on time of day (good luck trying to get a burger at the grill during the lunch rush in any kind of expedient manner), but generally the food itself is pretty good, especially on Tandoori Tuesdays. :)
Chris Lemon, King Fool, Director of Suck Consolidation
http://fredsmythe.com
Email: clemon79@outlook.com  |  Skype: FredSmythe

chris319

  • Co-Executive Producer
  • Posts: 10650
101 Ways to try to reinvent a game show
« Reply #66 on: July 16, 2011, 12:46:34 AM »
Tragedy and misery are part of the human condition, and the news is doing its job in reporting it. For TV producers to artificially exploit someone's misery by putting a person in a contrived situation purely for the entertainment of a mass audience does not sit well with me at all. The producers clearly do not have altruistic motives or they would simply make that person's misery go away. Their motives are exploitive; all they care about is audience draw. Getting a person's car back for him because he knows the date Post-It notes went on sale nationally, or not, is far more exploitive than straight reportage.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2011, 12:47:49 AM by chris319 »

Clay Zambo

  • Member
  • Posts: 2065
101 Ways to try to reinvent a game show
« Reply #67 on: July 16, 2011, 09:54:43 AM »
I'm surprised to say that my wife really enjoys 101, and is liking it better as the weeks go on.  (Last week's hotel-themed episode, particularly.)  I'll watch it with her on DVR, because speeding through the replays, teases, and assorted nonsense means there's really about 20 minutes of "content" (defined loosely here as question-answer gameplay and ejection stunts)--and if I've got 20 minutes to spare, why not?  The quiz portion has interesting playalong, and some of the stunts are clever.  If we do rewind and watch something again, it's to see how the stunt is designed to be safer than it looks.  Sure, it's possible that something could go tragically wrong, but there's a chance a fresnel could fall on a Jeopardy! contestant's head.  I don't think the stunts are significantly more dangerous than the challenges Amazing Race contestants have to face--but I'm willing to bet that 101's contestant pool is coached to scream like there's no tomorrow.
czambo@mac.com

Matt Ottinger

  • Member
  • Posts: 13018
101 Ways to try to reinvent a game show
« Reply #68 on: July 16, 2011, 09:58:46 AM »
The producers clearly do not have altruistic motives or they would simply make that person's misery go away. Their motives are exploitive; all they care about is audience draw.
I can't help but think that a reviewer might have written those same words to describe Strike it Rich or Queen for a Day back in the fifties.
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.

Jimmy Owen

  • Member
  • Posts: 7644
101 Ways to try to reinvent a game show
« Reply #69 on: July 16, 2011, 10:28:15 AM »
The producers clearly do not have altruistic motives or they would simply make that person's misery go away. Their motives are exploitive; all they care about is audience draw.
I can't help but think that a reviewer might have written those same words to describe Strike it Rich or Queen for a Day back in the fifties.
Yes, the sub-genre has been there since the radio days.  Even as a kid, though, I didn't really like QFAD, but I did think Jack Bailey was a very good host.  We've come full-circle without the kids running TV programming knowing they did.  I read a blurb about Byron Allen coming out with a show for fall called "We the People."  I wonder if he realizes Phillips Lord had a show with the same title back in the radio days, for which General Tire paid a great deal for format rights back in the late '50's?  Prolly not.
Let's Make a Deal was the first show to air on Buzzr. 6/1/15 8PM.

Tim L

  • Member
  • Posts: 755
101 Ways to try to reinvent a game show
« Reply #70 on: July 16, 2011, 10:33:52 AM »
I've just gone through the thread this morning, and I personally have no desire to see this "101 ways" show..My thoughts, probably mirroring what others have said to some degree, I've gotten to really dislike the shows that rely on "gimmicks" more than a game to succeed..The problem, as I see it, is that producers think that people want the instant gratification, rather than having to think for themselves,,It's that way in most genres of entertainment..I've looked at some old Mike Douglas Variety Show clips on YouTube from the 60's and 70's recently..It's stiking how really in depth the Interviews were..A good 10-12 minutes long before a commercial break..These days, "talk shows" are a lot more fast-paced, with celebrity plugs galore, again because people have such short attention spans..

The Ol' Guy

  • Member
  • Posts: 1410
101 Ways to try to reinvent a game show
« Reply #71 on: July 17, 2011, 12:07:02 AM »
It is sad that it's over-gimmicked. The main game play - a fastest-finger/who's closer style prelim to determine a picking order for the main questions -- the main multiple choice questions having 3 out of 4 correct, 2 out of 4, and eventually 1 out of four correct, eliminating players along the way until you get to a big showdown - is a sound and fun game. With the right staging, it would be a pleasant, passable half-hour, in-studio game. But, nooooooo. The nets want to fill an hour cheap, and it has to get the Nintendo demos. So there ya go. I still love the mechanics of Show Me The Money. The girls, the dancing, and the dramatic stretches to make it an hour show made it oh, so tedious. With writers complaining that too many game and reality shows are costing them jobs - note to networks: give us some solid half-hour games, and give the other half-hours to desperate sitcom writers. You could wind up with two solid hits instead of one mediocre hour show.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2011, 03:37:20 PM by The Ol' Guy »

MTCesquire

  • Member
  • Posts: 214
101 Ways to try to reinvent a game show
« Reply #72 on: July 17, 2011, 04:26:39 AM »
Saw the first episode of 101 Ways.  I didn't anything super offensive about the show.  As stated before, at its core it is a quiz show.  Unfortunately the quiz has been overshadowed by the gimmick of how the contestant exits the show for a wrong answer.  I saw one episode of the UK version and didn't make it through the full hour because it moved too slow, however I find the US version moves as a decent pace (maybe due to the host's ad libs between answers and the reveal but I digress...).  Is it Jeopardy! quality as far as the actual game is concerned?  Of course not.  Is it an inoffensive way to kill an hour compared to the rest of trash that pollutes the airwaves?  Sure it is.  Call it me lowering my standards over the past decade due to the crap networks have determined qualifies as good game shows or me not expecting to see another old-school caliber game show ever again but 101 Ways turned out a lot better than I thought it would and...I actually liked it.

clemon79

  • Member
  • Posts: 27694
  • Director of Suck Consolidation
101 Ways to try to reinvent a game show
« Reply #73 on: July 17, 2011, 04:59:23 AM »
I saw one episode of the UK version and didn't make it through the full hour because it moved too slow, however I find the US version moves as a decent pace
Are you freaking kidding me? They spread five questions out over the course of an hour.
Quote
Call it me lowering my standards over the past decade due to the crap networks have determined qualifies as good game shows
If you think one question every TWELVE MINUTES qualifies as a "decent pace"...yeah, that's exactly what I'm gonna call it.
Chris Lemon, King Fool, Director of Suck Consolidation
http://fredsmythe.com
Email: clemon79@outlook.com  |  Skype: FredSmythe

chris319

  • Co-Executive Producer
  • Posts: 10650
101 Ways to try to reinvent a game show
« Reply #74 on: July 17, 2011, 09:30:40 AM »
The producers clearly do not have altruistic motives or they would simply make that person's misery go away. Their motives are exploitive; all they care about is audience draw.
I can't help but think that a reviewer might have written those same words to describe Strike it Rich or Queen for a Day back in the fifties.
I'm sure many such reviews have been written about those shows. There is a book about television in which the producer of QFAD describes their M.O. and what they went through to get the show on the air. Part of the folly of QFAD was that an Amana refrigerator or whatever prize they had booked would solve a contestant's dilemma, no matter what the dilemma was.

QFAD didn't focus on the pathos of the losers. They took readings of the applause meter and crowned the queen, and the losers faded away with their consolation prizes. QFAD also didn't test the contestants. You didn't lose if you didn't know the answer to a question; all you had to do was have a story that the audience judged the most pathetic of the bunch.

I've never seen an episode of Strike It Rich, but there is a story where the producer instructed the director to take a close-up of a disabled contestant's crutches. The director, Matt Harlib, took off his headset and quit in disgust, right in the middle of a live network broadcast, leaving A.D. Ken Whelan to finish the show. (At one time Strike It Rich was directed by the late G-T vet Lloyd Gross.)

Legend has it that Jack Bailey was the biggest lush in Hollywood until he joined A.A. in 1948.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2011, 09:38:17 AM by chris319 »