Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Change for the better?  (Read 11683 times)

SuperMatch93

  • Member
  • Posts: 1736
Change for the better?
« Reply #30 on: November 13, 2013, 09:03:35 PM »


 


According to a book by one of the show\'s clue writers, smart players would assume (reasonably, in most cases) that they\'d know the first few clues in any given category, so those players would ring in as soon as they were able to do so, usually before Alex had even begun reading a clue.  This presented two big problems for the show.  inevitably, there would be clues that the player didn\'t know after all, but the show still had to tick away those precious seconds while he stands there blankly.  Secondly, some players weren\'t nearly as smart as they thought they were, and the result would be large negative scores.  This would be a particular problem late in the game when someone tried desperately to catch up.


 




Was this also a problem in the Fleming version? They maintained the \"ring in when the answer is exposed\" rule throughout the run and from what I\'ve seen, there weren\'t many awkward pauses.

-William https://cookcounty.biz
https://www.donorschoose.org/classroom/cpsbermudez
"30 years from now, people won’t care what we’re doing right now." - Bob Barker on The Price is Right, 1983

Matt Ottinger

  • Member
  • Posts: 13018
Change for the better?
« Reply #31 on: November 13, 2013, 09:30:24 PM »


 


Was this also a problem in the Fleming version? They maintained the \"ring in when the answer is exposed\" rule throughout the run and from what I\'ve seen, there weren\'t many awkward pauses.




 





 


I\'d like to answer with a quote from Bill Cullen about game show contestants:


 


\"They used to play it for fun, to get on the air and have their friends see them.  You\'d give them a thousand dollars and you made their year.  Now, unless it\'s twenty or thirty thousand dollars, they look at you like you suckered them into a deal that really didn\'t turn out as well as they perhaps had hoped.\"


 


In the case of Jeopardy, the original game, for all its highbrow reputation, was not all that different than other daytime affairs of the day.  It was a harmless trifle, played mostly by East Coast housewives.  When the 80s stakes were a lot larger (not to mention all-or-nothing), more people started taking the game more seriously, and exploiting its modest flaws became a LOT more commonplace.  The powers-that-be, which were an essentially different group than for the original show, decided a change was necessary


 


 




 


Aw, you\'re just bitter because you lost against Ken Jennings. :-P


 




 


FWIW, I\'m pretty sure I was better at the hand-eye thing than he was.  His depth of knowledge, though, was off the charts.

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.

Neumms

  • Member
  • Posts: 2459
Change for the better?
« Reply #32 on: November 14, 2013, 12:59:34 PM »

Before the changes Pat Finn wrought, there were the changes to the bonus game on \"The Joker\'s Wild\" during the CBS years. I\'m not crazy about the one they ended up with, but it was more exciting than its processors. Having the player get up and meet Jack at the big arm helped, too. 


 


Despite all they did wrong, I did like what Rossi\'s Temptation did with the final act on $ale. I liked that they went back to shopping for the big prizes, yet the idea of the bonus round to earn more shopping money added some action. The bonus round could have been better, but then so could the whole show.



J.R.

  • Member
  • Posts: 3901
Change for the better?
« Reply #33 on: November 14, 2013, 07:40:58 PM »

I\'m aware I\'m in the minority on this, but there were some aspects of TJW90 that I actually liked more than in the original run. The random money amounts, the direct clues over the long-winded softy questions and a more interesting end game (matching over devil avoiding). The category format slowed it way down though. Overall, I dug it.


-Joe Raygor

SuperMatch93

  • Member
  • Posts: 1736
Change for the better?
« Reply #34 on: November 14, 2013, 07:59:32 PM »

Though it may not be all that major, the switch from three final questions to a speed round on Sale definitely made it more exciting.


-William https://cookcounty.biz
https://www.donorschoose.org/classroom/cpsbermudez
"30 years from now, people won’t care what we’re doing right now." - Bob Barker on The Price is Right, 1983

Bryce L.

  • Member
  • Posts: 1180
Change for the better?
« Reply #35 on: November 14, 2013, 08:02:06 PM »


Another one I\'m surprised wasn\'t brought up yet: Jeopardy! redoing the buzzer system so that you can\'t ring in until after Alex finishes reading the clue. Didn\'t they sometimes have problems with people buzzing in too soon, or two podia lighting up at the same time?




Wouldn\'t the logical solution be to not start the timer until Alex has called on them?


clemon79

  • Member
  • Posts: 27694
  • Director of Suck Consolidation
Change for the better?
« Reply #36 on: November 14, 2013, 08:59:49 PM »


 



Wouldn\'t the logical solution be to not start the timer until Alex has called on them?




 


I\'m pretty sure the on-podium timers didn\'t exist until after the rule change was implemented.


Chris Lemon, King Fool, Director of Suck Consolidation
http://fredsmythe.com
Email: clemon79@outlook.com  |  Skype: FredSmythe