Author Topic: Evolution of the Genre (Read 5104 times)

Jimmy Owen · « **on:** January 16, 2004, 09:51:26 AM »

Over the years the terminology regarding the genre has shifted. From panel show, to quiz show, to game show. Nobody after 1958 wanted to call their show "a quiz show." Are producers today loath to calling their product "game shows"? Can "reality" be just a game by another name? Is it an evolution we should embrace, just as we embraced the gaudy sets of the '70s and '80s which were a far cry from the simple curtains and desks of the '50s. Is change good?

AH3RD · « **Reply #1 on:** January 16, 2004, 09:54:52 AM »

Man...you're wayyy over my head.

Ian Wallis · « **Reply #2 on:** January 16, 2004, 10:57:22 AM »

Most of these reality shows I wouldn't call game shows. Some of them are "contests", which are different. Living in a house for 3 months is NOT a game, living on an island for 39 days is NOT a game. I think we have to differentiate between a game show, and a contest. Some of these reality shows aren't even contests.

Is change good? Well, I guess everyone adjusts to change differently. Many of us here long for the days of the mid-70s when traditional game shows were plentiful. That's one of the reasons why I was so excited when GSN first went on the air. I was of school age when these shows aired (and I'm sure many of us were) and missed them the first time around - that's why its upsetting to see GSN head in the direction they're going in because they're moving away from the traditional game shows we all know and love.

For me it's kind of like a "comfort". For example, there are certain '60s and '70s sitcoms I watch over and over again because I grew up with them, and they were always there. Sometimes it's nice to spend a half-hour with those people again. On the game show side, that's why the early '90s were so tough because there were so few tradional games on at that time.

It does, however, seem like traditional games hows are "below the radar" right now - nobody's really considering them and there's only a few tradional ones on the air. Whether they ever come back in the form we'd like...I guess we'll have to wait and see, but it doesn't look very good at the moment, does it?

The Ol' Guy · « **Reply #3 on:** January 16, 2004, 11:48:50 AM »

Ian's on target with the thoughts about childhood comfort and appreciating the things you grew up with. Speaking just for me, it's quite the struggle to move on past a certain point - and the older we are, the narrower the outlets are we can find what we like, unless we can be more flexible. As younger people take over positions of leadership, they'll want things more like their favorite days, and the older options drop away. It's just a natural evolution. It's funny - when I hear new tv commercials using big band classics or 50s-era pop songs, I find it interesting that these tunes have value when they are convenient, but there are fewer places on the dial to hear them again. Diminishing audience, I know...and there's no sense whining about it, but let's hope that when new versions of great games come along, they at least keep the heart and core of the original and try to be sensitive enough to the greatest volume of viewers, compared to a narrow demographic that may or may not even appreciate the style of show it is.

SplitSecond · « **Reply #4 on:** January 16, 2004, 02:55:11 PM »

In all seriousness, this has to be the single most intelligent conversation on the board that I remember.

I think the most concise argument for it being comfort that we're looking for is that most of us are loath to call "Fear Factor" a game show, but generally have no problem letting "The Gong Show" or "Love Connection" slide.

Most of our fond memories are centered around a setting with a likeable host, an announcer, a studio, a catchy theme song, and a studio audience that applauds when each "contestant" is introduced. "Fear Factor" flies in the face of all these conventions, but it qualifies as a non-judged competition - in fact, much more so than my other two examples.

Of course, it's also a two-way street. With rare exception, network programmers nowadays are not willing to look at an in-studio game show unless it has a proven track record as a current hit overseas, or possibly a former hit here in the States. Even the most well-thought-out new game pitches nowadays are met with something along the lines of "This sounds good, but how can we take it out of the studio?"

The news about "Deal or No Deal" is surprising, but the show seems to be working wonders in Australia. On the other hand, has anything come of "Liar" over here?

Jay Temple · « **Reply #5 on:** January 16, 2004, 08:12:34 PM »

I think a functional difference between "game" shows and "reality" shows is that game shows sometimes have the disclaimer, "Portions of the preceding not affecting the outcome of the competition have been edited." With reality shows, it's understood that you're only viewing the interesting parts.

TimK2003 · « **Reply #6 on:** January 16, 2004, 09:12:41 PM »

[quote name=\'SplitSecond\' date=\'Jan 16 2004, 02:55 PM\'] I think the most concise argument for it being comfort that we're looking for is that most of us are loath to call "Fear Factor" a game show, but generally have no problem letting "The Gong Show" or "Love Connection" slide.
[/quote]
The Gong Show was a game show, Love Connection was not, in my opinion:

TGS was produced & hosted by someone who by that time produced many other bona-fide Game Shows...LC was produced by someone with only a couple of shows to their credit, but not as an executive producer.

But the real factor that places TGS into the Game Show category while leaving LC out is that Gong gave away Turtle Wax, and assorted other parting gifts to their contestants.

IIRC, Love Connection only gave money ($50?, $100?..) to the person who had the 3 choices prior to the show and after the show, if they went out with the top vote getter. I don't even think the people that only appeared on tape and not in studio got anything.

zachhoran · « **Reply #7 on:** January 16, 2004, 09:16:43 PM »

[quote name=\'TimK2003\' date=\'Jan 16 2004, 09:12 PM\']

But the real factor that places TGS into the Game Show category while leaving LC out is that Gong gave away Turtle Wax, and assorted other parting gifts to their contestants.

IIRC, Love Connection only gave money ($50?, $100?..) to the person who had the 3 choices prior to the show and after the show, if they went out with the top vote getter. I don't even think the people that only appeared on tape and not in studio got anything. [/quote]
$75 was given to the person picking the date IIRC. Also, the first six seasons of the original LC did have fee plugs at the end of the show(USA showed reruns of the 1988-89 season during their USA Live, the fee plugs were edited out of them, however) and Chuck would say "we have a nice gift for you" for those people who didn't hit it off on their date.

DrBear · « **Reply #8 on:** January 17, 2004, 09:24:07 AM »

Well, looking at what was said with the GSN changes - something along the lines of "people have an image of a smiling host and 'lovely parting gifts'" - I still think a lot of it is image among the network/cable bosses. And yes, we have changed to reality shows.

But I think a lot of it is the general distrust of intelligent people in this country. When it started, I don't know, but we're in about our third generation of people who felt it wasn't cool to be smart, and that group is now in control. So shows that require smarts are out, and shows that show sexy people in various stages of undress are in.

Just one of those things that make me think other countries are right sometimes. And it saddens me.

dscungio · « **Reply #9 on:** January 17, 2004, 11:46:58 AM »

[quote name=\'Jay Temple\' date=\'Jan 16 2004, 08:12 PM\']I think a functional difference between "game" shows and "reality" shows is that game shows sometimes have the disclaimer, "Portions of the preceding not affecting the outcome of the competition have been edited." With reality shows, it's understood that you're only viewing the interesting parts.[/quote]
But aren't there similar disclaimers after shows like Fear Factor, Survivor and The Mole? (I don't know about The Bachelor(ette), Average Joe or any of those other relationship shows because I don't watch them.) Sometimes they only appear in the squished credits for a second or so.

Dean

The Ol' Guy · « **Reply #10 on:** January 17, 2004, 12:25:55 PM »

Are there any rumors/stories/allegations of some of these contest shows - more like Survivor and Big Brother - still being manipulated by producers to achieve a desired plot direction or keep more viewer-friendly participants on by strongly urging vote changes, or has that gone away? When the controversy arose over Survivor some time back, it just soured me on the concept - reality and producer suggestions don't mix in my mind. What would be the difference between the 1957 Twenty-One and any such "reality" show in that sense? If your reality-based players play for real and throw the producers a curve ball, I'd think they'd have to live with it and go on. If Password or Pyramid has to suffer through a week of taping with a weak celebrity, they bite the bullet, right? Editing shows like Dog Eat Dog and Fear Factor don't matter, as long as we're seeing the original outcome of the events. In fact, why don't we just call some of those shows "suspense dramas" instead of "reality"?