Will network daytime game shows ever make a full comeback?

[tvmitch]

Again, I think shows like that and Hip Hop Squares may be the way of the future for game shows...they have to have a freewheeling atmosphere, and have a little bit of variety show thrown in to keep modern-day viewers engaged. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see faithful revivals of "Pyramid," "Split Second," and other more cerebral games, but they may not have a chance in today's market.

I understand that this is a common thought about "brainier" game shows, but really, there hasn't been a solid, genuine effort to put a Split Second or another quiz revival on air for a long time. I think there's a place for another one; it's probably not going to be in daytime like we once saw, but if a good quizzer was made, people would come, Ray.

[chris319]

Apart from what you see on CBS, I highly doubt there's going to be anything else. Daytime programming in general is more content to squeeze out talk show after talk show.

NBC can expand Today ad nauseam. Without LMAD what would CBS do? Expand CBS This Morning by one hour? Give the time slot back to the affiliates (not a great idea)? Expand The Talk to two hours? Rerun Alice and All In the Family? Remount Match Game/Hollywood Squares Hour?

It's cheaper to produce something in house than to pay a Fremantle to produce something.

[PYLclark86]

Who wouldn't want another hour of Charlie Rose?

[The Ol' Guy]

Please forgive if it seems harsh, but to adapt Mr. Clementson's tag, most of America's daytime viewers are ignorant and gullible. For the most part, either you make a game something as simple as possible, where even a guess can win, or you raise hopes of people wanting something for nothing. Millionaire and Jeopardy at least champion some mental and strategic achievement. But compared to what we have today, we have victims on parade with the endless court shows and Maury clones (which are often stacked with actors playing roles). Vapid interviews with with people whose fourth-billed appearance in a moderate hit movie qualifies them for the term "star", and gab fests that echo the talking points of the political parties of their choice. And they're done on the cheap. Just an opinion - we'll have to return to a national mindset of rewarding achievement and respect for each other - or at least crediting the home audience with a brain - before we see networks considering a return to something more stimulating than today's current fare. Victimhood sells. I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere there's a lawyer thinking about calling past losers on Jeopardy and telling them they were victims of an inadequate educational system and that they deserve financial justice ;-).

[Matt Ottinger]

I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere there's a lawyer thinking about calling past losers on Jeopardy and telling them they were victims of an inadequate educational system and that they deserve financial justice ;-).

I am waiting for that phone call.

[Winkfan]

Just an opinion - we'll have to return to a national mindset of rewarding achievement and respect for each other - or at least crediting the home audience with a brain - before we see networks considering a return to something more stimulating than today's current fare. Victimhood sells.

The Warren Hull version of Strike It Rich subscribed to that theory, and look where that got them.

Awaiting a "calling on the carpet" from Warren's ghost,
Tammy

[The Ol' Guy]

Ha! Thought of you when I wrote that. But I wouldn't figure you for one who would jump in such an action. To elaborate, I mentioned games that give people something for nothing, like LMAD or DoND. But on these shows, the contestants do give something. Their emotions and their dignity. That's the currency the producers elicit, because that's what we like to watch. And sometimes, people are certainly humiliated. Many people can lose with dignity and their head up high after a fair fight. But some people will always take the sting of losing as a personal affront and a national humiliation and demand satisfaction. Our fearless leader sinking to that level? Naaaahhhhhh....
[Besides..if you were to claim an inadequate education, would you ever be allowed back on the MSU campus?? :-)]

Ah - good point, Tammy. But again, shows like that made up a smaller percentage (Queen For a Day, Strike It Rich, On Your Account) of the overall game makeup. Just like, say, if I had my way, there would be no Dating or Newlywed Games on tv - but I am not the majority, and the whole audience would soon be bored with my choices. As long as there's a little something for everyone, let a few come on, if they're well done. I have a channel changer.

[BrandonFG]

I don't really have a problem with the D/NDs or LMaDs (current version) as much as I can't stand how they're produced (the former more). I don't want sob stories, and I don't want to see people crying because they don't know if $450,000 is enough money for them. And I sure as hell don't want goofy gimmicks and family reunions, or the manufactured drama.

Although these elements go back to the 50s, at least the shows from that era knew it was goofy and melodramatic. I just want to see everyday people as contestants, folks like my neighbor or the grandmother I see at the supermarket. Not waiters in-between gigs on whatever primetime drama is on hiatus.

[clemon79]

For the most part, either you make a game something as simple as possible, where even a guess can win, or you raise hopes of people wanting something for nothing.

I help out with a puzzle event every summer. As part of this event, we have some puzzles that lead to "challenge tokens", which they then bring to the main cafe we have set up as headquarters and perform in various games and events that can earn their team bonus points, ranging from playing a song in Rock Band to driving a remote-controlled boat and answering trivia questions to a communications game to identifying song riffs tied together with my awful Casey Kasem impression.

At the end, to keep everyone busy while we are tabulating the final scoring, we post all of the puzzle solutions on the wall of the cafe and give everyone green and red stickers that we invite them to stick to the answer sheets to say "I particularly enjoyed this" or "I really hated this", as a form of rudimentary feedback. We also have sheets explaining all of the challenges so those can be rated as well.

Invariably, the challenges that get the most green stickers are the ones that required the least effort to complete, and the ones that get the most reds are the ones that make people work a little for those 20 points, regardless of how creative they were or how much production value they might have had. And these are coming from people who signed up for a puzzle event of their own volition and ostensibly want to be challenged.

[itiparanoid13]

Again, I think shows like that and Hip Hop Squares may be the way of the future for game shows...they have to have a freewheeling atmosphere, and have a little bit of variety show thrown in to keep modern-day viewers engaged. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see faithful revivals of "Pyramid," "Split Second," and other more cerebral games, but they may not have a chance in today's market.

I understand that this is a common thought about "brainier" game shows, but really, there hasn't been a solid, genuine effort to put a Split Second or another quiz revival on air for a long time. I think there's a place for another one; it's probably not going to be in daytime like we once saw, but if a good quizzer was made, people would come, Ray.

For whatever limited perspective I can give, it's unbelievably hard to get a decently paced quiz show seriously considered in this country.  If I approached any American company with a quiz, 90% of the time the answer is, "Good luck getting a network interested in a show like this."  I take it to a more European-minded company and I sign the papers for it a week or two later.  Whenever Fox picked up The Chase all of us exchanged basically the same thought: "We love the show, we'd love to see a fast paced and tough quiz in America again, but we're floored they gave it a shot and we can't see it going anywhere."  Hopefully I'm wrong.  I've seen pitches and presentations for some really, really good quiz shows for America.  The interest just isn't there initially.  Then they go to England or the Netherlands or France, get popular, and then American networks take interest.

[TLEberle]

I understand that this is a common thought about "brainier" game shows, but really, there hasn't been a solid, genuine effort to put a Split Second or another quiz revival on air for a long time. I think there's a place for another one; it's probably not going to be in daytime like we once saw, but if a good quizzer was made, people would come, Ray.

I think we're not even having the right conversation. One of my running jokes is that if I were to win Mega Millions or Powerball I would set aside ten million dollars or so to build up a Revision3 for game shows. For those who don't know, Rev3 is an internet television network that puts out video podcasts on a whole bunch of topics. They're all polished and well done, and I defy someone to go there and not find something that would interest him.

Instead of bemoaning the dearth of daytime game shows, what we should be thinking about is the paradigm shift that's underway to online programming. Let's assume that a really well done quality game show could regularly pull in 100,000 viewers. No network would touch that, but if you were to put that online in some form, you can bet that sponsors would line up to back it, and you could find a devoted presence that would watch. Sure, the prizes would be lower than what we're now used to, but is that necessarily a bad thing?

[J.R.]

I seem to recall a online game show attempt a few years back. I think it was called PlayCafe.

It was a lot of fun, the hosts were good and it was fun to chat with fellow GSF members (before Facebook).

Shame it went down, what happened to it?