Author Topic: The games time passed by? (Read 13380 times)

JasonA1 · « **on:** December 05, 2013, 02:05:42 PM »

I caught an interview the other night from CBS This Morning circa 1990-1991. Mark Goodson was talking about his company legacy, and how some games didn\'t seem to have the pizazz necessary to survive the 90s, but To Tell the Truth was going to try.

What game shows of the past have the hardest time finding relevancy today? The right star and venue could make anything a success, sure, but I don\'t imagine we\'ll see You Bet Your Life make a comeback anywhere near the form it was originally successful in.

As you start to go forward in the overall game show timeline, the question gets muddier. Is To Tell the Truth itself past the diminishing point of audience attention spans? For me personally, it\'s a show I run hot and cold on. Sometimes I\'m in the mood to play along, other times the questioning makes me reach for the remote.

We\'ve also talked about Password before. The last time it was on TV, it was jazzed up significantly from the earlier versions. But a lot of us respond to Jimmy Fallon\'s late night Password skits, and they do them with some regularity. Could a form of that work in the same vain as @midnight, perhaps?

-Jason

TLEberle · « **Reply #1 on:** December 05, 2013, 02:28:53 PM »

What game shows of the past have the hardest time finding relevancy today? The right star and venue could make anything a success, sure, but I don\'t imagine we\'ll see You Bet Your Life make a comeback anywhere near the form it was originally successful in.

Just about any game show could be \"relevant\". I think that Name That Tune and Tattletales would have a difficult uphill climb reaching a level of consciousness that would make it a worthwhile proposition. For me the most recent iteration of T^4 would have been more palatable if the show had eschewed the salacious in favor of the remarkable (though I did like the one segment about the Poop Moose candy dispenser. That was neat.)

NickS · « **Reply #2 on:** December 05, 2013, 02:33:21 PM »

The hard part for Tattletales to get back on wouldn\'t necessarily be the idea of gossip - it\'s finding couples that are married for more than a couple of minutes, IMO.

BrandonFG · « **Reply #3 on:** December 05, 2013, 02:41:03 PM »

In addition to the audience games Fallon and Letterman play, I think Hollywood Game Night shows that a simple game like Password could work. However, I think the latter would work more as either a mini-game, or as a round in a revival*.

The GSN revival of I\'ve Got a Secret from the mid-2000s was enjoyable, but the retro shtick got old, and I didn\'t think the all-gay panel really added much to the show. Make it a light-hearted enough effort (maybe a few drinks to loosen the mood), and even add a little innuendo**, and I think it\'s a nice late night show. Same for What\'s My Line. Something like $100-500 for every \"No\" or something...maybe even less than that.

I think part of the issue with Name That Tune is finding the middle ground of popular music. If the show goes for pretty 20-somethings, then most of your music is going to come from the last 10 years with the occasional 80s or 90s tune. I\'m not so sure I want to hear an orchestral version of Ridin\' Dirty***, nor see the contestants standing in confusion when the band plays a stumper like Nothing Compares 2 U.

*Stay with me here...round 1 is \"Classic Password\", round 2 may use a P+/Super Password) puzzle, winner plays Lightning Round to determine how much Alphabetics is for, and so on. That\'s just off the top of my head to say that I\'m not sure 22 mins. of straight Password works as much in 2014.

**In other words, not a bunch of penile questions.

***Okay, I kinda do

Vahan_Nisanian · « **Reply #4 on:** December 05, 2013, 02:45:51 PM »

The Joker\'s Wild & Tic-Tac Dough.

Both shows are traditional Q&A quizzers, and were the most poorly-rated, in terms of GSN rerun ratings (according to Jamie Locklin), despite being on the schedule for several years.

BrandonFG · « **Reply #5 on:** December 05, 2013, 02:51:35 PM »

The Joker\'s Wild & Tic-Tac Dough.

Both shows are traditional Q&A quizzers, and were the most poorly-rated, in terms of GSN rerun ratings, despite being on the schedule for several years.

I don\'t think that means much. Marshall\'s Hollywood Squares was poorly rated, yet Bergeron\'s version ran for six years. Just because people don\'t wanna watch 30-year-old episodes doesn\'t mean they can\'t do well. I love both shows, but they were pretty damn formulaic, just like all the other B&E shows of the late-70s/early-80s.

TLEberle · « **Reply #6 on:** December 05, 2013, 02:54:45 PM »

It does\'t: poorly rated does not equate to \"irrelevant,\" and for eight years, they were certainly culturally relevant (I\'m just using Jason\'s word, I don\'t think it is appropriate for the discussion at hand.)

JasonA1 · « **Reply #7 on:** December 05, 2013, 03:14:58 PM »

It was a poor choice of words in that one sentence then, because the crux of my question was to ask which games might be incapable of a revival. \"Relevant\" does cloud the issue.

Tattle Tales is an interesting one. While the star power was never burning white hot in the 70s, I think the continued segmentation of our cultural pie makes that one difficult, no matter how funny the guests may be.

-Jason

clemon79 · « **Reply #8 on:** December 05, 2013, 03:18:50 PM »

I think what folks here are missing is that the Password bits on Fallon are done more for the kitsch value than for the actual game. They might be playing the game seriously, but really, there\'s a reason they are using the old-style set and Higgins is standing up there in horn-rimmed glasses.

So y\'all see \"hey, Password, awesome, they keep doing it so it must be popular! OMG REVIVAL\" and everyone else is seeing \"huh-huh, that\'s old.\" And the latter doesn\'t stand up over a half-hour.

jjman920 · « **Reply #9 on:** December 05, 2013, 03:44:06 PM »

I still think Password+/Super Password could work again without any major changes. I find it to be the best revamped format of the original. I think it is still well paced, even after all these years.

I agree with Brandon in that What\'s My Line?, with $100 per no, could also work. I\'ve constantly thought about panel lineups and mystery guests who could be on versions today. I think it\'d be a lot of fun nowadays.

I think You\'re in the Picture would be the hardest show to revive.

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #10 on:** December 05, 2013, 04:12:02 PM »

Every time I hear that TattleTales wouldn\'t work, the reason always seems to be about not being able to get couples. I really don\'t think that\'s as big a problem as people want to make it out to be. It was never a requirement that both spouses were in the public eye. Nice when it happened, but not necessary. Anybody you saw on Hollywood Game Night last summer could probably do it, especially as a weekly show.

As much as I love them, though, it seems the traditional panel shows have gone the way of the traditional variety hours.

weaklink75 · « **Reply #11 on:** December 05, 2013, 04:32:58 PM »

Every time I hear that TattleTales wouldn\'t work, the reason always seems to be about not being able to get couples. I really don\'t think that\'s as big a problem as people want to make it out to be. It was never a requirement that both spouses were in the public eye. Nice when it happened, but not necessary. Anybody you saw on Hollywood Game Night last summer could probably do it, especially as a weekly show.

As much as I love them, though, it seems the traditional panel shows have gone the way of the traditional variety hours.

Probably- but there still might be one or two that may be viable (I always thought that, with all the advances in makeup and such, Masquarade Party is one that still could work now if circumstances are right)

Marc412 · « **Reply #12 on:** December 05, 2013, 05:51:56 PM »

I still think Password+/Super Password could work again without any major changes. I find it to be the best revamped format of the original. I think it is still well paced, even after all these years.

The only change I could think of is to use Go\'s scoring system (puzzles worth $250, $500, $750, $1,250, game at $1,500) so as to make the first puzzle more meaningful.

TLEberle · « **Reply #13 on:** December 05, 2013, 05:58:14 PM »

The problem is that if the teams split the first two puzzles it now neuters the third round.

I think it would be more difficult than worthwhile to remount The $64,000 Question with the blind double/nothing bet. There\'s some great use of the Specialized Subject out there (Mastermind, Debt, Idiot Savants, even Two Minute Drill) but just having it as a ladder climb seems drab these days, plus I\'m kinda worn out on double-or-quits.

clemon79 · « **Reply #14 on:** December 05, 2013, 05:59:12 PM »

The only change I could think of is to use Go\'s scoring system (puzzles worth $250, $500, $750, $1,250, game at $1,500) so as to make the first puzzle more meaningful.

I think this marks the first time I have EVER seen someone suggest Go\'s scoring system actually be applied to something ELSE.