Hollywood Squares coming back...

[cmjb13]

And Syd Vinnedge is involved

[parliboy]

"The new twist is that home audiences can play along with the studio contestants"

As opposed to the earlier versions of Hollywood Squares, when they couldn't?

On edit: take a look at the Hollywood Teasers Logo.  That thing is exactly what I think it is, isn't it?

Hol.  Lee.  Shit.

[clemon79]

On edit: take a look at the Hollywood Teasers Logo.  That thing is exactly what I think it is, isn't it?

That, sir, is indeed the Blitz board with people sitting inside of it.

As someone who actually liked All-Star Blitz, I cannot share your "ho. lee. shit." I'd totally give this a fair shot. I wonder if they decided to speed up the game (or make it a race to 3 or something) by just outright giving a contestant the clue on a single right answer, since clearly they have tossed out the whole top-middle-bottom-star thing.

/assuming we're right, calling it a "new" word game is horribly disingenuous, though

[parliboy]

As someone who actually liked All-Star Blitz, I cannot share your "ho. lee. shit." I'd totally give this a fair shot. I wonder if they decided to speed up the game (or make it a race to 3 or something) by just outright giving a contestant the clue on a single right answer, since clearly they have tossed out the whole top-middle-bottom-star thing.

My comment was not based on, "I won't watch this," but on "This is infinitely more surprising and out of left field to me than another Hollywood Squares."  I would totally give this a shot too, if it's not too plodding.

[Neumms]

That thing is exactly what I think it is, isn't it?

Yeah. I don't know how they're going to get three-in-a-row up and down. Maybe that's where the contestant torment comes in.

"All-Star Blitz" wasn't that bad, was it? I just remember it being slow--a celebrity in each chunk of puzzle may help that--and that the stars weren't funny. If I had to round up a panel of six, I'd rather play Match Game, but there's no reason the formula can't work.

[Matt Ottinger]

My comment was not based on, "I won't watch this," but on "This is infinitely more surprising and out of left field to me than another Hollywood Squares."  I would totally give this a shot too, if it's not too plodding.

I think Chris has it right when he says it might be as simple as winning the entire square for correctly agreeing/disagreeing with the celebrity, which would be a far faster pace than the original Blitz, and a welcome one.  It's also amusing how this will be pushed as a fresh, "new" format when we'll all recognize that it's more than fifteen years old.

Color me intrigued as well, but on the other hand, I was somewhat intrigued by the idea of a new version of Gambit, and Catch 21 leaves me cold.

[BrandonFG]

It sounds interesting enough. HSq/H^2 was one of the few recent shows (let's say of the last 15 years) that IMO was competently produced. Hopefully they won't take the "Catch 21" route, which leaves me cold as well, hit or not.

[Fedya]

You mean you don't want the top prize to be TWENTY.  FIVE.  THOUSAND.  DOLLARS?

[JasonA1]

We talked before on these intarwebs about an earlier pilot for Hollywood Teasers (which TVPMM has the music from) and I wondered how I would execute the show if each answer meant giving away a clue. I think the answer is rather simple. Play it like nighttime (or syndicated, if you prefer to say that) Squares. Play your first two games for X dollars/points, play remaining games for X-times-2 until time runs out, finish any puzzle in progress on the buzzers (a'la Classic Concentration when they ran short on time). I have a bonus round idea that builds off of that concept as well.

 I always loved the Blitz word game, and I really hope they get a run at it on television.

-Jason

[tvwxman]

Am I missing something? Is there news that this has been greenlit for airing? If so, I'm not seeing it.

It's a format they've had for years. The "Teasers" game has already been piloted, and failed to sell a few years ago. If they're trying again great, but again, I'm not seeing that either.

[parliboy]

My comment was not based on, "I won't watch this," but on "This is infinitely more surprising and out of left field to me than another Hollywood Squares."  I would totally give this a shot too, if it's not too plodding.

I think Chris has it right when he says it might be as simple as winning the entire square for correctly agreeing/disagreeing with the celebrity, which would be a far faster pace than the original Blitz, and a welcome one.  It's also amusing how this will be pushed as a fresh, "new" format when we'll all recognize that it's more than fifteen years old.

Color me intrigued as well, but on the other hand, I was somewhat intrigued by the idea of a new version of Gambit, and Catch 21 leaves me cold.

Catch 21 leaves me cold too, but that's largely because it moves at one-third the pace of Gambit.  Like I said, "if it's not too plodding".

[Neumms]

Color me intrigued as well, but on the other hand, I was somewhat intrigued by the idea of a new version of Gambit, and Catch 21 leaves me cold.

How does Catch 21 leave you cold? Is it with the game itself, or the choices made in mounting it?

[Matt Ottinger]

We talked before on these intarwebs about an earlier pilot for Hollywood Teasers

And only a year or so ago, as it turns out.

Color me intrigued as well, but on the other hand, I was somewhat intrigued by the idea of a new version of Gambit, and Catch 21 leaves me cold.

How does Catch 21 leave you cold? Is it with the game itself, or the choices made in mounting it?

Little of both.  Mostly, as others have mentioned, the ridiculously slow pace.  Unlike some, I have no problem with Carlton as the host, he's perfectly adequate.

[JasonA1]

We talked before on these intarwebs about an earlier pilot for Hollywood Teasers

And only a year or so ago, as it turns out.

And funny that I could have recalled those panelists listed for you, but I conveniently skipped over Dan saying they played it almost exactly as I suggested - to a time limit. Works for me.

Yes, this announcement is little more than "we're trying," but I guess i'm excited to see that A) Merrill hasn't dropped the format from contention, because I enjoyed it and B) if it does become a go somewhere, it's another chance at a traditional game being successful, and a chance to tip the scales in that direction. For all the games with harnesses and more jib sweeps per segment than questions asked, the shows that ran multiple orders in recent memory have been Lingo (without the bells & whistles), Catch 21, Millionaire, Feud....I'd like to see something like this join the list.

-Jason

[BrandonFG]

You mean you don't want the top prize to be TWENTY.  FIVE.  THOUSAND.  DOLLARS?

When it's yelled at me like that and I have functioning buttons on my remote, absolutely not. ;-)