GSN makes Big Primetime Changes

[clemon79]

But given the direction that GSN is going, what if they are right? What if all pre-1990s game shows (including 70s MG and 70s FF) are gone come next year?

Erm, then I'll continue watching one of the myraid of other cable options at my disposal, assuming at that time I am even still a cable subscriber at all?

It'll be ok. Really. It'll be just fine.

[Vahan_Nisanian]

I know it's not the end of the world, I just was giving my thoughts on what those people on GSN forums were thinking.

[TLEberle]

You sure fooled me, then. Maybe you should append some sort of offsetting language like "Hey, I wonder if they're thinking this:" instead of just coming out and saying it.

[catnap1972]

But given the direction that GSN is going, what if they are right? What if all pre-1990s game shows (including 70s MG and 70s FF) are gone come next year?

Then I guess they resort to airing "The Nanny" 24/7.  Can even keep the GSN name (Got Some Nanny) to boot!

[xavier45]

There is actually another poster on those boards named Faceo15, who actually believes that he had a chance at becoming the VP of GSN. And he also says the same thing that Billycw is saying. Either these guys know something or they are losing their minds. I'm going with the latter.

[Chelsea Thrasher]

[The problem with that line of reasoning is that there's significant evidence that's not going to happen.  If the older series were going to provide a "strong showing", they would have done so already.  I think this is more a "be grateful for what we have" situation.

Oh, make no mistake, I don't believe that Eubanks CS' drawing 400k viewers is going to lead to a double run of To Tell the Truth 1980, 7 days a week at 5PM, or something as near-absurd.  But everything about this scheduling move reeks of a new programming head coming in, seeing what they currently have, and wanting to see what can work so they have some idea of what type of programming to run and to invest in.  

If, when the changeover happens, the classics go out and perform poorly while Baggage and Newlywed do 400+, then that's what you'll see on the network.  If suddenly Richard Dawson and Gene Rayburn generate huge viewer totals in primetime, it's going to make any programming head worth their salt more willing to invest in those and similar shows. Likely? Heck no.  But it's been several years since any of the older series have really been even *tried* in prime time (They did a run of late-prime Match Game 5 years or so ago, and Family Feud on Sundays a few years back that were in prime on both coasts, and the 2008 NYSI/Trivia Trap hour aired in late-prime on the west coast, but it's been a while on them all) so at the very least, it's a shot.

[Vahan_Nisanian]

This was also the same person who said that his teacher told him that credit crunchers are illegal, and that he thinks he has every right to speak for everyone.

[J.R.]

This was also the same person who said that his teacher told him that credit crunchers are illegal, and that he thinks he has every right to speak for everyone.

No offense, but you really don't have much room to be criticizing other posters.

[Jimmy Owen]

The block scheduling may be a response to what they see as the available audience.  Older people would be more likely to stay at home on the weekends, so why not show programs that appeal to them?  If you put on younger demo shows when younger demos aren't home, you'll get lower ratings for those shows.  Even the big networks virtually abdicate Saturday night with repeats when they're not airing sports of some sort.

[jjman920]

When I saw Friday, my jaw dropped. I never thought I'd see classics in primetime ever again. What a pleasant surprise. I can't watch since I'll be working (-_-), but I definitely would if I could (and I haven't been a regular watcher since 2009).

As for no classics by next year...I'm not buying it. It seems that there is always this constant fear that the channel is going to drop the classics, but I just don't see it happening, and it has not happened yet. The classics founded the channel and I don't think they can just throw them by the wayside after 17 years. Just as The Price is Right keeps the G-T Asterisks surrounded by a myriad of other changes and TVLand keeps the classics surrounded by a myriad of newer additions, GSN will hold on to some of the classics.

[FACEO15]

This was also the same person who said that his teacher told him that credit crunchers are illegal, and that he thinks he has every right to speak for everyone.

To not show credits is illegal and don't talk about me behind my back! GOT IT! I've been over at the GSN boards since 2001.  

Also, whoever the hell started the rumors about me as VP of Programming need to grow up.  Where is that coming from?  I said someone who interviewed with the network who was a big believer in variety and restoring the classics.  Enough with the rumors and backstabbing of people.  

Classics are on their last legs right now through my constant communications with David Goldhill because financially they aren't helping the network.  Maybe some of you should try talking to executives at GSN like I have been doing for the past few months.  They respond to emails.

All of you GROW UP!!!

[tpirfan28]

Mmm...popcorn.

/still the 85/86 season of $25,000 Pyramid?

[Matt Ottinger]

For those of you who might wonder what inspired Faceo to show his face-o around here for only the second time ever, it appears that Casey Abell posted a link to this thread over in the GSN thread about the demise of classics, creating an infinite loop of discussion about game show discussion.

Seems only fair that I return the favor, though as you've been cautioned already, some of this is likely to make your head spin.

For the record, what Faceo actually said about the GSN position was, "Wish I could have taken the job, but my own company needs me more than GSN currently."  Elsewhere, he's also taken credit for GSN programming changes.  Literally, "You can thank me for the recent schedule change."  However, my favorite is, "A journalist can't reveal his sources. That's against policy for many newspapers and media industries," which is a really interesting take on the journalism profession.

[Phil V]

To not show credits is illegal . . . .

Oh yeah?  Could you provide a Bluebook appropriate citation to the California statute (or Hell, Federal statute for that matter) that addresses the legality of credit crunching?  I'd love to see it.

[TLEberle]

To not show credits is illegal and don't talk about me behind my back! GOT IT! I've been over at the GSN boards since 2001.  

Borrowing a page from a good guy and my close personal friend since 1982, Chris Lemon:

Or.

Else.

What.