3/13 Blockbusters on GSN

[joshg]

[quote name=\'Fedya\' date=\'Mar 9 2004, 10:51 AM\']What about that Croton watch?  :-)[/quote]
Forgot about that... I treat it as a collector's item. Granted, it was sent to me in a bubble-wrap envelope, but it's not something everybody has. So with that said, I'll be putting it up on eBay later today ;-)

JOSH

[PeterMarshallFan]

I've always scratched my head as to why people love Cram so much. To me, it's a disorganized mess of rounds stolen from different shows [1st round from Talk About, with honorable mention to Double Dare for the wheels; 2nd round, Shop til you Drop] Any show that has to have its model do a phone sex parody to promote it should have never left the drawing board, IMO. If you like the show, fine, but I just can't believe anyone ranking it as one of the 20 greatest game shows of all time.

Now, here's mine. Load your cannons, Casey, you're gonna LOVE this. :-)

1. Hollywood Squares
2. Match Game
(2.5. Match Game/Hollywood Squares Hour)
3. Bullseye
4. The Price is Right
5. Tic Tac Dough
6. Starcade
7. The Joker's Wild
8. Cross-Wits
9. Go!
10. Concentration
11. Password Plus/Super Password
12. Card Sharks
13. Name That Tune
14. Press Your Luck
15. Break the Bank '76
16. Spin-Off
17. $xxx,xxx Pyramid
18. Play the Percentages
19. Scrabble
20. Whodunnit? (now who remembers THIS show?)
Honorable Mention: 21, (Super) Millionaire, Sale of the Century

But first, since when are most television viewers idiots?

When The Batchelor became a hit.

[Jay Temple]

I just wanted to point out one other good thing about Blockbusters.  It's impossible to have a tie.  It doesn't matter how stupid the contestants are;  as long as someone eventually gets each space that's called for, eventually someone will make their connection.

[CaseyAbell]

Different strokes. I can't believe anybody ranks Bullseye as the third best show of all time. That would make WinTuition the second best. Or maybe the first best.

If I have to choose between the slapstick and silliness of Cram or the sheer snooze of Bullseye, it's not a hard decision. Unless I really need a nap.

Also hard to see why PYL gets in but Whammy doesn't.

And finally, Feud, Jeopardy and WoF have to get in someplace. But if I can have heresy by excluding TPiR...

What the hey. Difference of opinion makes the horse race. This list, by the way, mostly confirms my cynical definition of a classic. It also plays pretty well into that hilarious post the Kid made a few days ago on the GSN board: "The Theory of Game Show Classicivity."

[jcompton]

[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Mar 9 2004, 08:21 AM\'] It's a pretty routine quizzer, kinda slow, not particularly suspenseful. Mr. Cullen still launches a zinger or two, but the gameplay just sort of moseys along. An okay time-filler on GSN weekends but hardly a gem of the genre, IMO. [/quote]
I think the show is quite underrated.

You have a game board that provides more intrigue and possibilities than, say, a Tic-Tac-Dough setup, without being so complicated that you can't pick it up easily (connect red to red, white to white... it's all sitting right there, they even politely flash the relevant colors when somebody scores.)

You have a moderately interesting concept (solo vs. family pair) that gives the players and the host something to talk about. This concept was arguably a failure as it was pretty clear that the solo player had an advantage most of the time, but a good concept nonetheless.

I don't think it was terribly slow-moving. Maybe not a lightning pace, but you could get through a game in four questions, and the back-and-forth slugfests could be quite entertaining. The guaranteed winner was also a very nice touch. And the money really wasn't bad at all.

And while the 10/20-time winners on Blockbusters maybe don't get the same adulation as Jeopardy Super Duper Grand Masters Of Ultimate Maximumness, I personally got a kick out of watching the players at the top of their game steamroll the opposition time and time again. And it didn't require 30 minutes of watching Jeopardy to get there, another big plus in my book.

For the "students of the genre", there's a lot of value as well...

- the gameboard itself, a neat and (usually) smooth-running hack of the analog era
- A set design that's a little dynamic, but cleverly keeps Cullen in one place
- strategies for "experienced" viewers to rant about (such as "no, you dolt, you should have taken T! You'd have had three opportunities to win then!")

[Steve McClellan]

[quote name=\'jcompton\' date=\'Mar 9 2004, 09:25 PM\']it was pretty clear that the solo player had an advantage most of the time[/quote]
Try telling Pat and Liz McCarthy that. :-p

Seriously, If I'm recalling the last episode's stats correctly, I believe the family pairs came out slightly ahead. Of course, I'm sure there are those among us who can probably rattle off the numbers off the tops of their heads.

[CaseyAbell]

I think the show is quite underrated.

Welcome to the board! I don't know that Blockbusters is underrated around here. I seem to have brought out every fan the show ever had. I'm not saying the show is terrible. It's a nice amiable quizzer that ambles along. I just don't think that it was one of the greatest game shows ever.

Gotta wonder, what's your beef with Jeopardy?

[zachhoran]

[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Mar 10 2004, 09:08 AM\']
Welcome to the board! [/quote]
 Jcompton was a regular on Usenet, even though it may be his first post on this board.

[Fedya]

[quote name=\'jcompton\' date=\'Mar 10 2004, 12:25 AM\'] [quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Mar 9 2004, 08:21 AM\'] It's a pretty routine quizzer, kinda slow, not particularly suspenseful. Mr. Cullen still launches a zinger or two, but the gameplay just sort of moseys along. An okay time-filler on GSN weekends but hardly a gem of the genre, IMO. [/quote]
I think the show is quite underrated. [/quote]
 I agree with you JCompton, but would like to add a few things you neglected: the format of having questions categorized by one-word answers beginning with a certain letter.  The category types on shows like J!, TTD, TJW, and so on, seem fairly similar and conventional to me: History, British Lit, Movies, and so on.

The other good thing was that you could buzz in in the middle of a question and answer without hearing the end of it.  On questions where the writers gave two definitions for the same word, this made both for some fun wrong answers, and some interesting risk-taking.

IMO the worst thing about Blockbusters was Cullen's pacing -- the show goes far too slow for my tastes.

[zachhoran]

[quote name=\'Fedya\' date=\'Mar 10 2004, 10:06 AM\']

IMO the worst thing about Blockbusters was Cullen's pacing -- the show goes far too slow for my tastes. [/quote]
 CUllen didn't slow the pacing until maybe six months into the show's run. Maybe that was GT's request that he do that. This was around the time Password PLus changed its maingame format and added the progressive Alphabetics jackpots. Maybe NBC or GT didn't want more than one bonus round played per show in most cases, and these changes were done for that reason.

[jcompton]

[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Mar 10 2004, 09:08 AM\'] Gotta wonder, what's your beef with Jeopardy? [/quote]
 I've never found it, and straight quiz shows in general, terribly engaging. While I at least respect that Jeopardy tends to reward the most knowledgeable contestants (unlike, say, Weakest Link), watching people knock down trivia questions one by one with very little to break it up just doesn't ring my bell. The occasional A/V question and betting strategies don't raise my interest level any, either. Personal preference.

I actually avoided Millionaire for a while for that very reason, although during the main ABC run I discovered that the other elements of the presentation (music, host, stakes) made it more interesting to me, at least for a time.

I don't know that Blockbusters is underrated around here. I seem to have brought out every fan the show ever had.

I'm not arguing for a National Blockbusters Observance Day, but I think a lot of "game show scholars" tend to lump it the way you do: just sort of "there." That, in my book, is underrating it.

Fedya:

I agree with you JCompton, but would like to add a few things you neglected: the format of having questions categorized by one-word answers beginning with a certain letter. The category types on shows like J!, TTD, TJW, and so on, seem fairly similar and conventional to me: History, British Lit, Movies, and so on.

The first-letter thing was a nice touch and helped keep the game moving along--your path to victory wouldn't be stopped by being a poor history student or whatever. Plus it helped cue contestants (and play-at-home viewers) as to what the answer might be, which a school of game show design says is a Good Thing, yes. I don't think that element in itself would put BB on a pedestal in my mind above the shows you mentioned, although it probably doesn't hurt.

[CaseyAbell]

No question that Jeopardy is a "straight" quizzer. It's a very fast-paced, challenging one as well, with great play-along value. It pulls me into the game immediately, and the pace doesn't let go.

Strangely enough, I think Jeopardy may actually be the underrated show among what you flatteringly call "game show scholars." I just call us game show freaks "game show freaks." The show missed GSN's Feast of Favorites both years, which I know is an imperfect measure distorted by bloc voting and a self-selected sample. But it's still something of a surprise.

After all, the show's been on forever, all the way back to the sixties with Art Fleming. It's enjoyed very successful network and syndie runs. Day in, day out, it attracts a large, loyal audience.

Which may be exactly why game show freaks underrate it and get sentimental over far more obscure shows. Jeopardy is too much "everybody's property," much like Wheel of Fortune (which also missed out on this year's Feast of Faves).

[PeterMarshallFan]

Different strokes. I can't believe anybody ranks Bullseye as the third best show of all time. That would make WinTuition the second best. Or maybe the first best.

Pure taste. I liked Bullseye, and gave it a straight across the board vote in the Feast.

If I have to choose between the slapstick and silliness of Cram or the sheer snooze of Bullseye, it's not a hard decision. Unless I really need a nap.

You say that as if you speak for everybody, which you don't.

There's a reason Bullseye made the Feast and Cram didn't.

Also hard to see why PYL gets in but Whammy doesn't.

I just liked PYL more. Perhaps because the winnings typically were higher than on W!, but maybe not.

This list, by the way, mostly confirms my cynical definition of a classic. It also plays pretty well into that hilarious post the Kid made a few days ago on the GSN board: "The Theory of Game Show Classicivity."

Bull. Pure and utter bull. I like what I like, and if it ain't on GSN, it ain't on GSN.

You know, I can't possibly be the only one sick of hearing you constantly whining about your "cynical definition of a classic." Stop trying to police other people's likes and dislikes. I can ignore it at GSN, but there's no technology for me to do the same here.

[SplitSecond]

People are entitled to their own tastes.  Hell, I like "The Name's The Same".

Don't tell anybody.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Mar 10 2004, 02:13 PM\'] But it's still something of a surprise.
 [/quote]
 Not hardly. Unless the option to vote for a certain era of the show was there (and it wasn't), why would people vote for Jeopardy when it's been on five days a week pretty much continuously for twenty friggin' years?

much like Wheel of Fortune (which also missed out on this year's Feast of Faves).

Fancy that. Same argument.

which I know is an imperfect measure distorted by bloc voting and a self-selected sample.

No, it's an imperfect measure because it's NOT A DETERMINATION OF QUALITY. It was a poll asking people what shows they would like to see in a marathon. "What shows I would like to watch on a one-shot basis" and "what shows are my favorites" are two distinct different lists.

I am SO TIRED of people pointing to that damn poll and trying to pull any useful metrics out of it, because it simply wasn't designed to produce them.