Interesting take on WoF

[JasonA1]

Here's a piece from Salon called "Wheel of Fortune's Fantasy" where the writer describes the show as stuck in time - particularly, a time (and place) where nobody needs the money they're poised to win. Food for thought, in one respect or another.

-Jason

[chad1m]

I didn't think it had much substance. There were a few inaccuracies or takes to fit the mold of the story and it just seemed written to cut down the show.

[J.R.]

I think the hipster who wrote this article needs to go back to critiquing Swedish impressionist films.

[The Ol' Guy]

Yeah, the writer did seem to have a nose-high-in-the-air turn on the whole thing, but the writer did click with a certain element some of us appreciate about game shows. Was watching the Blockbusters ep at The Game Show Vault a couple of hours ago and liked how the family pair shook hands and hugged the solo player who had just won the match. The almost fantasy-like courtesy and kindness (even if only doing so because they were on-air) does seem to throw back to the Leave It To Beaver/Father Knows Best era. I hope that element of game shows always stays "frozen in time." Since a lot of you walk some mean streets (I can't see Grand Rapids as the thug capitol of the USA), seeing some nice people can't hurt. And I guess the good thing about not obsessing over the money given away (what will you do if you win big?) avoids emotional letdown if the player fails. Play the game, have fun, take home whatever you get and enjoy it. It's all about the game, not the contestants.

[TLEberle]

Smug pretension and naked elitism: it's what you'd get if Casey Abell and Jeremy Soria had a kid.

[JasonA1]

I was tickled when he poked fun at the puzzle construction. "A CHEERY POSTMAN."

Despite the author's bone to pick with not-so-hip puzzles, a Wheel of Fortune with heavy pop culture influence, combined with an audience fragmented by age and 500 million avenues for content, is asking for blank stares. Maybe in the rabbit ears days you could get away with it more, but they almost have to keep it broad by design.

-Jason

[Clay Zambo]

The author seems to be pining for the how-my-life-would-change narrative of your Millionaires, Deals, and the like.  And I think a point is being missed.  On those shows, we're dealing with one contestant at a time, and the whole point of contestant selection casting is to find and build that great story.  On Wheel--or Jeopardy, for that matter, the multiple contestant structure wouldn't really allow for that.  There's hardly time. Does Drew ask every Plinko player what they're going to do with the cash?  No.  We gotta move on to the next game.  And so with Wheel.

Mistaken approach though it might be, a rising tide lifts all ratings (or something like that), so it's nice to see Wheel being featured at all.

[TLEberle]

Mistaken approach though it might be, a rising tide lifts all ratings (or something like that), so it's nice to see Wheel being featured at all.

Not to besmirch your earlier good points (which they were) but can a rising tide lift the QE2? Sounds like a lotta work.

[parliboy]

The author seems to be pining for the how-my-life-would-change narrative of your Millionaires, Deals, and the like.  And I think a point is being missed.  On those shows, we're dealing with one contestant at a time, and the whole point of contestant selection casting is to find and build that great story.  On Wheel--or Jeopardy, for that matter, the multiple contestant structure wouldn't really allow for that.  There's hardly time. Does Drew ask every Plinko player what they're going to do with the cash?  No.  We gotta move on to the next game.  And so with Wheel.

Mistaken approach though it might be, a rising tide lifts all ratings (or something like that), so it's nice to see Wheel being featured at all.

Not necessarily a mistaken approach for the first four segments of the show.  But winning cash in the bonus round is at least $30k, and there's only one contestant at that point.  Where I am, that's 20% down on a decent home. That kind of opportunity to build equity is more life-changing than many people stop to consider.  It's worth asking when the money gets that large.  And if it's not worth asking, then maybe the article is a lot more on point than a lot of people give it credit for.

[Clay Zambo]

Not necessarily a mistaken approach for the first four segments of the show.  But winning cash in the bonus round is at least $30k, and there's only one contestant at that point.  Where I am, that's 20% down on a decent home. That kind of opportunity to build equity is more life-changing than many people stop to consider.  It's worth asking when the money gets that large.  And if it's not worth asking, then maybe the article is a lot more on point than a lot of people give it credit for.

Fair point;  I don't mean to suggest that it's not a wonderful windfall, or that I'd turn up my nose at it.  I don't mean to suggest, either, that the question isn't worth asking, just that not every game has to be about that narrative. And considering that there are prizes on the wheel, too--there are, aren't there?--it might make for an tricky moment: "Gee, I really need the money to pay for Grandma's liver transplant."  "Sorry, you won the Corvette."

[DrBear]

Well, if life-changing is what the writer wants, she should try to bring back "Queen For A Day."

[WarioBarker]

And considering that there are prizes on the wheel, too--there are, aren't there?--it might make for an tricky moment:

The Bonus Wheel contains nothing but cash and cars. And the cars come with $5,000 cash.

[Neumms]

I guess the good thing about not obsessing over the money given away (what will you do if you win big?) avoids emotional letdown if the player fails. Play the game, have fun, take home whatever you get and enjoy it. It's all about the game, not the contestants.

The author even makes the point herself: "And why should you listen to a sob story at all? This is just a game." What I would draw from her observations is that they do give money in a way that suggests it falls from trees. Hey, here's three grand for a little ol' toss-up! Here's a thou for losing! Have a hundred grand!

Now that she brings it up, the large amounts make it hard to reconcile being a light happy fun game. Toning down the dollars wouldn't cost the show in excitement. And if it helped spare viewers a few plugs, all the better.

[Hastin]

Toning down the dollars wouldn't cost the show in excitement. And if it helped spare viewers a few plugs, all the better.

//Doesn't approve.

Honestly the only way these games would be played for their game, is on a home game where the points don't matter. There's a real differences in game shows. It's why Millioniare had to change it's tone, because in 2000 - it was a big money game. Today, they are lucky if they give out $25,000 (which would be considered a small win on Wheel).

[PYLdude]

Toning down the dollars wouldn't cost the show in excitement. And if it helped spare viewers a few plugs, all the better.

//Doesn't approve.

Honestly the only way these games would be played for their game, is on a home game where the points don't matter. There's a real differences in game shows. It's why Millioniare had to change it's tone, because in 2000 - it was a big money game. Today, they are lucky if they give out $25,000 (which would be considered a small win on Wheel).

That's changed since the game's format radically changed, hasn't it?