Shows that hit the ground running

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'fostergray82\' date=\'Jan 6 2004, 11:58 PM\'] It did all right for a Saturday night. (hey that rhymes!)
 [/quote]
 Maybe, but 2.9 is hardly a spectacular number. (or even VERY good.)

[Robert Hutchinson]

[quote name=\'Dsmith\' date=\'Jan 7 2004, 01:04 AM\']That could make another thread:  Which shows started out fine; but had changes made to them, that are making them tank?

My vote goes to Wheel of Fortune.[/quote]
What are you counting as the change(s)? Tossups, 2.5 "special rounds" every day?

Of course, WoF made a big change while it was at the top--dropping the shopping--and it's still at the top. Can you imagine shopping on WoF in 2004? With the current ad time requirements, they'd be lucky to start a third round twice a week.

[Dbacksfan12]

[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' date=\'Jan 7 2004, 04:00 AM\'] [quote name=\'Dsmith\' date=\'Jan 7 2004, 01:04 AM\']That could make another thread:  Which shows started out fine; but had changes made to them, that are making them tank?

My vote goes to Wheel of Fortune.[/quote]
What are you counting as the change(s)? Tossups, 2.5 "special rounds" every day?

Of course, WoF made a big change while it was at the top--dropping the shopping--and it's still at the top. Can you imagine shopping on WoF in 2004? With the current ad time requirements, they'd be lucky to start a third round twice a week. [/quote]
IMO, the show is tanking.  Of course, the ratings prove otherwise.  The current version of Wheel doesn't suit my fancy.

I was talking about most things you mentioned...most of which are cheap ways to incorporate another sponsor's plug into the show.  This include instances such as this puzzle that Doug Morris made:
http://gameshow.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=414&hl=

I am also talking about the jackpot round, prize puzzle, etc.)  I'm also not a fan of the toss-ups, unneded set changes, and all the "theme weeks".

[calliaume]

[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Jan 6 2004, 08:33 AM\'] What is your choice for a show that was so good from the start that very little on-air tweaking ever happened? [/quote]
 Back to the original question:

I'm not sure Wheel of Fortune qualifies here, given the bonus game didn't arrive for five years, and game play in the first few weeks was brought to a halt by the "Buy a Vowel" space on the wheel.

As for Twenty-One, given they had to radically adjust the payout structure on the 2000 version and rig the 1956 version after the first failed episode, it seems to me "tweaking" did occur.

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'Jay Temple\' date=\'Jan 7 2004, 02:02 AM\'] Pyramid

Edit to clarify:  I'm talking about the whole franchise, not specifically the one titled Pyramid. [/quote]
 Slight disagreement.  I say "slight" because I've already said in this thread that the truly classic shows didn't need much tinkering, and you're certainly right that the show didn't change THAT much over its run.

Still, especially when you compare it to other classics mentioned on this thread, early $10,000 Pyramid episodes didn't seem to quite have it together compared to later shows.  Perhaps there wasn't on-air "tinkering", but there was certainly a shake-down period before the show got to be as good as we remember.

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'gameshowguy2000\' date=\'Jan 7 2004, 02:08 AM\'] What about both versions of 21? The 50's version may have been famous for Stempel vs. Van Doren, but the 2000 version was much better, and lasted longer than its predecessor. They both started out well, but the 2000 version lasted longer. MUCH Longer. [/quote]
 Do you even think about checking your facts when you say things like this, or do you just make stuff up and assume no one else knows any better?  Even if you're just making stuff up, how on earth could you possibly think that a show that ran only four months lasted MUCH longer than...well, anything?

And that's just the factual error.  If you really think that a Q&A game is *improved* when it goes to multiple choice questions, I think it says a lot about your capacity to appreciate a Q&A game.

[Mike Tennant]

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Jan 7 2004, 10:02 AM\']Still, especially when you compare it to other classics mentioned on this thread, early $10,000 Pyramid episodes didn't seem to quite have it together compared to later shows.  Perhaps there wasn't on-air "tinkering", but there was certainly a shake-down period before the show got to be as good as we remember.[/quote]
As has been discussed before, this seems to reflect Bob Stewart's limitations.  Stewart was excellent at coming up with game show ideas, but he didn't have the wherewithal to hone a concept down to a well-oiled machine like Mark Goodson did.  Thus, Stewart's creations for Goodson, which have been mentioned earlier in this thread, did more or less "hit the ground running," while Stewart's own productions tended to be tweaked in ways small and large after making it to air.  Surely this accounts for the relatively few long-running shows from the Stewart stable, with Pyramid being perhaps his only unqualified success--largely because it was almost in its final form when it first aired.

[BrandonFG]

[quote name=\'Dsmith\' date=\'Jan 7 2004, 04:04 AM\'] [quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' date=\'Jan 7 2004, 04:00 AM\'] [quote name=\'Dsmith\' date=\'Jan 7 2004, 01:04 AM\']That could make another thread:  Which shows started out fine; but had changes made to them, that are making them tank?

My vote goes to Wheel of Fortune.[/quote]
What are you counting as the change(s)? Tossups, 2.5 "special rounds" every day?

Of course, WoF made a big change while it was at the top--dropping the shopping--and it's still at the top. Can you imagine shopping on WoF in 2004? With the current ad time requirements, they'd be lucky to start a third round twice a week. [/quote]
IMO, the show is tanking.  Of course, the ratings prove otherwise.  The current version of Wheel doesn't suit my fancy.

I was talking about most things you mentioned...most of which are cheap ways to incorporate another sponsor's plug into the show.  This include instances such as this puzzle that Doug Morris made:
http://gameshow.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=414&hl=

I am also talking about the jackpot round, prize puzzle, etc.)  I'm also not a fan of the toss-ups, unneded set changes, and all the "theme weeks". [/quote]
 To me, the puzzles have been ridiculous for years now, with or without the corporate placement. One bonus round puzzle I complained about at ATGS: "A CUDDLY DOG." They're really stretching.

I would also say that the show has suffered from "Mo Money" syndrome, even though it's still the #1 show. The $100,000 bonus round, the additional $1,000 for the bonus spin, $1,000/$2,000/$3,000 toss-ups, $500 house minimum. I could go on and on, but Wheel seems really desparate to give away money...either that, or they're under that notion that "nobody's a loser." Not that I'd argue with the $500, esp. since there's no taxes. :-)

Honestly, it's interesting how the shopping era is long forgotten, and Wheel rarely refers to it (except for on their milestone episodes, and the one or two retro weeks c. 2000). It's almost as if they want the viewers to think it never happened (kind of like that "dream" season of Dallas).

[calliaume]

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Jan 7 2004, 10:13 AM\'] [quote name=\'gameshowguy2000\' date=\'Jan 7 2004, 02:08 AM\'] What about both versions of 21? The 50's version may have been famous for Stempel vs. Van Doren, but the 2000 version was much better, and lasted longer than its predecessor. They both started out well, but the 2000 version lasted longer. MUCH Longer. [/quote]
Do you even think about checking your facts when you say things like this, or do you just make stuff up and assume no one else knows any better?  Even if you're just making stuff up, how on earth could you possibly think that a show that ran only four months lasted MUCH longer than...well, anything?
 [/quote]
 Shows how well I read the post -- I was so surprised Twenty-One would be put forth as a game that "hit the ground running" that I missed the factual error.

The original version hit the ground, was swallowed into the abyss, and was spat out the following week, oiled, buffed, and about as trustworthy as Pete Rose.

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'fostergray82\' date=\'Jan 7 2004, 03:39 PM\'] Honestly, it's interesting how the shopping era is long forgotten, and Wheel rarely refers to it (except for on their milestone episodes, and the one or two retro weeks c. 2000). It's almost as if they want the viewers to think it never happened (kind of like that "dream" season of Dallas). [/quote]
 What do you expect them to do?  "Welcome to Wheel of Fortune, where originally, we used to stop between rounds and have you buy prizes with the money you won, but many, many years ago we decided to abandon that concept and now we play for cash.  Also, Vanna used to actually turn trylons that had the letters on them rather than the touch screens that we use now.  Oh, and the original wheel had a space on it called "Buy a Vowel" but we stopped using that a long time ago.  And did I mention that Vanna and I weren't the original hosts?  'Cause we weren't.  Now let's get ready for our first toss-up puzzle.  That's something we added fairly recently."

[ChuckNet]

Please kindly visit jumptheshark.com, and review the correct usage of the term before attempting to use it in future communications. Thank you.

Even some visitors to that site have no clue what it means...one vote on the Temptation Island page begins "JTS Day 1" and continues "I like the show"...if this voter liked TI, why would s/he vote that said show was all downhill from the get-go?

Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious "Chuckie Baby")

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'ChuckNet\' date=\'Jan 7 2004, 04:43 PM\']

Please kindly visit jumptheshark.com, and review the correct usage of the term before attempting to use it in future communications. Thank you.

Even some visitors to that site have no clue what it means...one vote on the Temptation Island page begins "JTS Day 1" and continues "I like the show"...if this voter liked TI, why would s/he vote that said show was all downhill from the get-go?
 [/quote]
 You are correct, which once again supports my motto: People are F^#%ing Stupid.

However, the site's owners have a correct explanation of the phenomena there, so there is useful information if you can get past the other idiots who have visited.

[TLEberle]

What about both versions of 21? The 50's version may have been famous for Stempel vs. Van Doren, but the 2000 version was much better, and lasted longer than its predecessor. They both started out well, but the 2000 version lasted longer. MUCH Longer.

A few things why:

1. Multiple choice questions

2. Bigger payouts

3. Perfect 21 Bonus Round

In addition, I'll add my favorite, Winning Lines. It did VERY well on Night #1, with Catherine Rahm's $500,000 Wonderwall win. But the home-viewer sweepstakes didn't attract viewers, and the show just jumped the shark, when it SHOULDN'T have.

I'll deal with these one at a time.  As for Twenty-one, the three things you've listed were three things they should NOT have changed to make the show decent.  They shot themselves in the foot on this one.

As for Winning Lines, there's probably nothing to say that hasn't been said before.  One night of mediocre ratings doesn't equate to VERY well.

--
Travis Eberle

[JasonA1]

I would also say that the show has suffered from "Mo Money" syndrome, even though it's still the #1 show.

Toss-ups were received fairly well at ATGS if I recall correctly. Personally, the idea *of* a toss-up puzzle is good in my view, but having two before the game never made sense to me. The second one makes some sense, but isn't that neccessary.

As for the $1000 added to the final spin thing, they made themselves look good in a way. With all the inflation on the wheel (i.e. minimum value $300) the speed-round was really anticlimatic. It looks like a good thing (adding the $1000) but it wouldn't be that needed if the wheel were the same. It makes a good opportunity for the other players to catch up, but the idea should be trying to win rounds, rather than hope for Pat to hit 5k.

-Jason

[calliaume]

[quote name=\'ChuckNet\' date=\'Jan 7 2004, 06:43 PM\'] Even some visitors to that site have no clue what it means...one vote on the Temptation Island page begins "JTS Day 1" and continues "I like the show"...if this voter liked TI, why would s/he vote that said show was all downhill from the get-go?
 [/quote]
 A) The writer had so little ability to discern good from bad that even an awful show would appeal to them.

B) They figured someone literally "jumped the shark" on Temptation Island.  Perhaps Fonzie.