Great short-lived shows

[TimK2003]

I'll add Catch Phrase to the list.

Art James was a decent host, the gameplay was somewhat challenging, and for the Mid 80's, the graphics were about as good as you could get then.

What killed it was that Syndie Wheel and J! were the really hot newer shows while the other popular game shows of the time were known franchises.  Didn't give much of a chance for a new concept like Catch Phrase to get good timeslots that did not go up against Merv's shows here in the States.

Meanhile, East of the Atlantic, though, the format had a chance to get legs and grow into a decently rated show.

[TLEberle]

This is my co-sign. Naturally, it was better with the more inventive categories, but to fill 13 weeks of shows, you need material of all stripes. There are ways to mitigate the subjectivity -- having more than one judge, and making a meal out of that fact, would soften the blow of a "wrong" answer. But if just one person is the arbiter and decides, "nope, you don't bring beer to a picnic," you're bound to make somebody at home mad.

-Jason

when you say make a meal of it, do you mean having a judge on camera to deliver verdicts? I think if you’re not doing Caught n the Act have a jury like on Scattergories and if two out of three flash a red light then that’s wrong.


I don’t know if we can call PTB great but Bill makes it jolly fun even if it comes off as a bit of a potboiler.

[BillCullen1]

Three little words: The Big Showdown

Seconded. I also nominate:

The Moneymaze
To Say The Least
Rhyme and Reason
Trebek Double Dare
Catch Phrase

[Kevin Prather]

I mentioned Greed earlier, but I'll also put in a good word for Winning Lines. It's a tragedy that such an amazing end game got stuck with such a broken play-in round.

My idea of a solution would be anyone who doesn't make it to the Wonderwall goes back to the 49ers to play again. It takes a little bit of the stink off of getting jobbed in Sudden Death if you at least get another shot at it.

[BrandonFG]

I'll also put in a good word for Winning Lines. It's a tragedy that such an amazing end game got stuck with such a broken play-in round.

My idea of a solution would be anyone who doesn't make it to the Wonderwall goes back to the 49ers to play again. It takes a little bit of the stink off of getting jobbed in Sudden Death if you at least get another shot at it.

For years I've said the show could scrap the first 20 minutes in favor of either a Ring of Fire play-in with seven to 10 players, or an elimination contest similar to 1 vs. 100 or The 1% Club, keeping the original 49 players.

With the former concept, you could prolly get two games in a self-contained half-hour. It may requires a name change tho...

[TLEberle]

I believe the title came from the winning line on a lottery ticket. France called it The Winning Number.

I think each of 2k21, Lines, Greed and Paranoia all had something to recommend.

[Stackertosh]

Greed
Million Dollar Password
Sports Jeopardy
Whammy
Gsn The Pyramid was pretty good.

[Chelsea Thrasher]

For years I've said the show could scrap the first 20 minutes in favor of either a Ring of Fire play-in with seven to 10 players, or an elimination contest similar to 1 vs. 100 or The 1% Club, keeping the original 49 players.

With the former concept, you could prolly get two games in a self-contained half-hour. It may requires a name change tho...

Just spitballing an idea here: Basic show structure of Winning Lines (Horde Act 1, Big Seven Act 2, Wonderwall Act 3), except as an hour, and ditching most of the number-based conceits that started in the UK. 

The 1 vs. 100 elimination bit for the opening 49ers. Start with the horde. Narrow it down to 7. 

Each player that makes it to the seven wins a small cash payout. Maybe $100, maybe $500. Instead of "eliminate your opponent's number" you basically crib something akin to a multiplayer version of the Trivia Race from Trivia Trap. First to five or seven or whatever times well in run-throughs wins five grand that's theirs to keep (bumping up from the $2500 from the old series for inflation) and goes to the Wonderwall, played almost verbatim. 

At the bottom of the hour, the top seven go back to the pool, and we do it again. If the same player makes it to the Wonderwall both games, they get an extra $5,000 bonus on top of the previous $5K x2 for the clean sweep, regardless of what happens at the Wonderwall either time.

[Chelsea Thrasher]

I know the longer-lived Cullen run is beloved by many, and the UK edition went on for eons, but I've always had a massive soft spot for Bill Rafferty's version of Blockbusters. Rafferty was fantastic on both series he hosted around that time (along with Card Sharks), and although this is controversial, I actually liked both the switch to the 1v1 quiz and the way they solved the problem of the "advantage" (flip sides in round 2, 4x4 tiebreaker). It's a fundamentally different show than both Bill's run and the UK iteration, but I have the entire thing now and have had so much fun revisiting it.

 Switching to the player-linked progressive jackpot mid-run was a fundamentally solid idea as well (if you haven't seen: A player's first trip to the bonus was worth $5K. If they lost, it was worth $10K next time, then $15K, etc...BUT unlike Super Password, etc. if that player lost, the jackpot automatically reset. (IE no profiting off past players failures).

[Dbacksfan12]

Switching to the player-linked progressive jackpot mid-run was a fundamentally solid idea as well (if you haven't seen: A player's first trip to the bonus was worth $5K. If they lost, it was worth $10K next time, then $15K, etc...BUT unlike Super Password, etc. if that player lost, the jackpot automatically reset. (IE no profiting off past players failures).

I respect your opinion plenty…so I have to ask…what makes this a “solid idea”?  Win three straight times, you win $15,000.  Lose two and then win…you’ve actually made out better, as you got the $100/correct answer in the losses plus the $15k.

My preference would have been playing for $5000 on the first win, $10k for the second, etc.

[TLEberle]

Switching to the player-linked progressive jackpot mid-run was a fundamentally solid idea as well (if you haven't seen: A player's first trip to the bonus was worth $5K. If they lost, it was worth $10K next time, then $15K, etc...BUT unlike Super Password, etc. if that player lost, the jackpot automatically reset. (IE no profiting off past players failures).

I respect your opinion plenty…so I have to ask…what makes this a “solid idea”?  Win three straight times, you win $15,000.  Lose two and then win…you’ve actually made out better, as you got the $100/correct answer in the losses plus the $15k.

Just my own--you get the excitement as a champion stays on and tries to knock off the end game for $25,000 instead of $5,000, but also if the champion loses the accountants are happy as that's at least $20,000 that goes back into the prize budget. Chelsea also made the point about free riding and showing up at the right time. If you can play ten gold runs the most you can win is $52,000 plus the consolation cash, not swoop in and win a monster bank.

I thought Jeopardy '78 and Sale of the Late 1980s were fine with their growing jackpots irrespective of a win or loss but Sale was absolutely rendered inert with so many smaller steps.

[Jeremy Nelson]

Switching to the player-linked progressive jackpot mid-run was a fundamentally solid idea as well (if you haven't seen: A player's first trip to the bonus was worth $5K. If they lost, it was worth $10K next time, then $15K, etc...BUT unlike Super Password, etc. if that player lost, the jackpot automatically reset. (IE no profiting off past players failures).

I respect your opinion plenty…so I have to ask…what makes this a “solid idea”?  Win three straight times, you win $15,000.  Lose two and then win…you’ve actually made out better, as you got the $100/correct answer in the losses plus the $15k.

My preference would have been playing for $5000 on the first win, $10k for the second, etc.

I think Wordplay solved for this perfectly by only adding $2,500 to the jackpot for each unsuccessful run. You can still knock off a big jackpot if you win after a couple unsuccessful tries, but you ultimately make out way better if you just win every time you go up to the bonus.

[Neumms]

Money Maze (which should come back in prime time)
Alex Trebek’s Double Dare
Bruce Forsyth’s Hot Streak (I may be the only one here who liked it)

The Now You See It solo game was so exciting. I wish they’d added racing a clock to a front game round (a la Million Dollar Password where it wasn’t so welcome).

[Chelsea Thrasher]

I respect your opinion plenty…so I have to ask…what makes this a “solid idea”? 

In this case, it largely hews to what Travis said, about fulfilling the "show" end of "game show" (the optics of an increasingly large jackpot) while at the same time being significantly easier on the budget over the long haul than a true progressive jackpot that doesn't encourage a free ride. The prime example is one of Blockbusters' contemporaries, Super Password. The preceding week could easily have the customary 5-6 games per week all end in a shutout in the end game, new player walks on the next week with a new celebrity, cashes out the game for $30K-$35K, then goes home next game.  With Blockbusters, you still keep the occasional "our champion is playing for $35,000!", but if they fail out seven straight then lose on the eighth, the show just saved $35K (as the new player plays for $5K instead of $40K). 

I agree with Jeremy's general thesis about Wordplay incentivizing repeat winners at the lower total by making the start more than the increment, however, totals like $7,500, $12,500, etc. are clunky in execution in ways that multiples of $5K/$10K aren't. (Similar to how Wheel of Fortune's whole "$37,000 for season 37!" thing was always weird).

[SamJ93]

Money Maze (which should come back in prime time)

You know what? I had never thought about it before, but in the wake of The Wall, The Quiz With Balls and their ilk, I could see this working. The only problem is that we'd now be treated to a 5-minute video blurb about how badly the couple needs the money and a 30-second "suspenseful" pause before revealing the value of every prize column.